Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,091
|
Post by Rabbit on Apr 15, 2015 18:31:51 GMT
Crikey ..... I'm thinking slightly anal here.
It's the best portable amp I've ever had if I'm honest. The biggest problem is setting the computer up so that you get the best from your computer. I have Javier to thank for that. The boy really knows his onions and has me converted big time to DSD from computer and my computer isn't actually capable of the very best. However, I have the best that it can offer and the imaging and sense of space in even older recordings is just stunning.
The Micro is really worth getting and hooking on to your computer.
The rest is a bonus ... Digital audio from TV, IPad, x3. Absolutely superb.
Soon though ......
X3 digital to Micro with line out to SeNNator straight into the hd650. Makes my mouth water!!
|
|
Javier
Administrator
Digital bytes
Posts: 987
|
Post by Javier on Apr 15, 2015 19:54:39 GMT
would you guys agree with this quote from a head-fier? "The problem with DSD64 has always been the large amount of ultra sonic noise that gets passed through. DSD128 should be the minimum starting point when upsample especially when using 44.1kHz source material. DSD128 moves a bit more of that noise further up the band making it less audible with the use of high quality filters and modulators whether 5th or '7th order preferred' yield some pretty awesome SQ. Unfortunately the higher up you go the more processing power the CPU needs to process the algorithms and for me I think that's why DSD128 sounds better than DSD256 on my setup because of all the Macbook's noise from the fan etc getting in the the stream. If I could I would go down the NAA route but I haven't found a NAA for dummies yet." He's got a point. Upsampling to high rate DSD in HQP needs a beefy CPU. A Core i5 is the bare minimum to get it started and when upsampling to the highest rates with the most complex filters and modulators it can bring the most powerful Core i7s to their knees. |
|
oldson
extremely active
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by oldson on Apr 15, 2015 20:16:38 GMT
would you guys agree with this quote from a head-fier? "The problem with DSD64 has always been the large amount of ultra sonic noise that gets passed through. DSD128 should be the minimum starting point when upsample especially when using 44.1kHz source material. DSD128 moves a bit more of that noise further up the band making it less audible with the use of high quality filters and modulators whether 5th or '7th order preferred' yield some pretty awesome SQ. Unfortunately the higher up you go the more processing power the CPU needs to process the algorithms and for me I think that's why DSD128 sounds better than DSD256 on my setup because of all the Macbook's noise from the fan etc getting in the the stream. If I could I would go down the NAA route but I haven't found a NAA for dummies yet." He's got a point. Upsampling to high rate DSD in HQP needs a beefy CPU. A Core i5 is the bare minimum to get it started and when upsampling to the highest rates with the most complex filters and modulators it can bring the most powerful Core i7s to their knees. thanks Javier. i have one more query.... i cant remember where i read this but someone somewhere posted a list of different playback forms in an order resembling a "league table", with the best at the top. he had 24/192 pcm listed above dsd64 for quality!! would you agree with that? if i can find it again i will post a link. |
|
Javier
Administrator
Digital bytes
Posts: 987
|
Post by Javier on Apr 15, 2015 21:20:41 GMT
TBH I don't think I'd be able to hear any difference between the two in a well performed blind test but from a technical POV I'd prefer to listen to what I consider technically better and if, like most nowadys, I happen to own a Sigma Delta DAC (like the micro) I would try to feed it DSD but most probably higher than DSD64, either PCM converted and/or DSD64 upsampled to DSD128 or higher depending on my PC's CPU. If I had a R2R DAC based on the TDA1541, PCM170x or even a discrete R2R like the Soekris DAC, then I'd feed it PCM.
Technically, for PCM the higher the bit depth and sample rate the better and, in case of DSD, the highest the sampling rate the better provided the DAC is/are designed to take advantage of these which is not always the case and in many cases higher sampling rates can actually be detrimental to specs. Still, technically better doesn't mean the difference is necessarily hearable no matter what some say. Think the difference between two identical cars one with 300 bhp and another with 310 bhp, the latter is technically better but without measuring instruments most mortals will have a hard time guessing which one is which when driving them on a road. If I could afford both one and the price difference between them wasn't too big I would get the technically better one, others won't deem it worth the extra cost.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,091
|
Post by Rabbit on Apr 16, 2015 7:28:32 GMT
I'm not sure that I can tell the difference tbh which is why I feel the guy is getting a bit ott about formats. I can hear the difference between computer and x3 funnily enough. The computer plays DSD better. Drum sounds are also quicker. It's not the timbre but the space in the sound that improves IMO. Although th X3 plays DSD, my own opinion is that it may be better to use pcm tbh.
It is becoming confusing with all the formats and knowing what they actually are Javier. For instance, Foobar set to ASIO? Then differences, if there are any audible between DSD and PCM.
People are beginning to want it put into some kind of 'hierarchy' of quality because they can't really hear it themselves. One that I struggle with is that filter on the Micro. Which setting is best? Sometimes I get quite strong differences in sound and at other times hear no difference. It depends on what you're playing.
It does seem a bit like the days of put the file on the player and press play are changing with the varying quality of formats and choices of ways to actually play them.
In the end though, I'd say just use your ears and don't worry about it. If it sounds good, then leave it, even if it isn't the best technically.
For me, DSD from computer played by HQP is really top notch from the Micro via usb.
Then I'd say again .... Computer playing FLAC on Foobar or HQP via Usb to Micro.
Then x3 playing FLAC into Micro.
Followed by X1 or X3 from line out into Micro or other amp.
Then X3 or X1 straight into headphone.
However, ALL sound really good from the bottom up. The bottom end sounds softer and slightly less focused than the top one.
I prefer DSD but whether it's in my mind or I think it's technically better is debatable.
|
|
oldson
extremely active
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by oldson on Apr 16, 2015 17:57:33 GMT
thanks for the replies guys.
i am gonna have to get a dsd dac and try it myself, i guess.
at the moment i am favouring the micro but there is so much choice out there.
have also considered the (cheap) schitt loki, but it only goes to dsd64.
i will go around in circles for a few months yet anyway, as i wont have funds until july/august.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,091
|
Post by Rabbit on Apr 16, 2015 18:26:31 GMT
Simon, the Micro is an unassuming little amp that when you hear it, your kind of glad you spent the money. It's so versatile as well as having an excellent sound in terms of input options and setting the gain. It will even drive an iem and go up to an he6.
I've been using the Fostex T50 with it in 'turbo' mode, which is a lot of power, and tou wouldn't believe just how lively the Fostex headphones become. The drivers seem to be working quicker and you get an incredible attack on sounds with them on the Micro.
It's worth saving for IMO.
|
|
oldson
extremely active
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by oldson on Apr 20, 2015 18:05:53 GMT
Simon, the Micro is an unassuming little amp that when you hear it, your kind of glad you spent the money. It's so versatile as well as having an excellent sound in terms of input options and setting the gain. It will even drive an iem and go up to an he6. I've been using the Fostex T50 with it in 'turbo' mode, which is a lot of power, and tou wouldn't believe just how lively the Fostex headphones become. The drivers seem to be working quicker and you get an incredible attack on sounds with them on the Micro. It's worth saving for IMO. if the micro is this good then maybe the "idsd-pro" will be even better?? albeit at 3x the price, though. maybe i should save for that? ( this is how my mind teases me). not sure if the pro will have the 3d feature, though. |
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,091
|
Post by Rabbit on Apr 20, 2015 18:27:21 GMT
Fully-Balanced DAC (USB/SPDIF/AES-EBU/Bluetooth)
PowerSource: External DC 15V/2A
Formats: 44.1/48/88.2/96/176.4/192/384KHz PCM
2.8/3.1/5.6/6.2MHz DSD
DXD
Quad Core Dual Mono Bit Perfect DSD, PCM & DXD DAC by Burr Brown (4-DAC Chip; 8-Channel; 16-Signals)
Filter: PCM: Standard/Minimum Phase digital, Bitperfect 1, Bitperfect 2; selectable
DSD: Standard/Extended Range/Minimal analogue, selectable
DXD: Bitperfect Processing, fixed analogue filter
Input: USB 3.0
compatible with iPhone,iPod, iPad and Android Devices USB-OTG#
SPDIF RCA/Optical (only PCM up to 192KHz), only active if USB disconnected
AES-EBU Balanced / BNC SPDIF Unbalanced (selectable)
Bluetooth with aptX
Output XLR True Balanced Audio (4V Output)
Audio RCA (2V)
6.3mm Headphone
3.5mm adapter included
Volume Control: Balanced 4-Way precision analogue, can be bypassed for Line Outs
Dynamic Range: >119dB
THD &N (Line) < 0.001%
HP Out Gain: 0dB, 10dB and 20dB user-selectable
THD &N (HP 100mW) < 0.003%
Output Power (16R): > 3000mW
|
|
oldson
extremely active
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by oldson on Apr 20, 2015 18:33:15 GMT
Fully-Balanced DAC (USB/SPDIF/AES-EBU/Bluetooth) PowerSource: External DC 15V/2A Formats: 44.1/48/88.2/96/176.4/192/384KHz PCM 2.8/3.1/5.6/6.2MHz DSD DXD Quad Core Dual Mono Bit Perfect DSD, PCM & DXD DAC by Burr Brown (4-DAC Chip; 8-Channel; 16-Signals) Filter: PCM: Standard/Minimum Phase digital, Bitperfect 1, Bitperfect 2; selectable DSD: Standard/Extended Range/Minimal analogue, selectable DXD: Bitperfect Processing, fixed analogue filter Input: USB 3.0 compatible with iPhone,iPod, iPad and Android Devices USB-OTG# SPDIF RCA/Optical (only PCM up to 192KHz), only active if USB disconnected AES-EBU Balanced / BNC SPDIF Unbalanced (selectable) Bluetooth with aptX Output XLR True Balanced Audio (4V Output) Audio RCA (2V) 6.3mm Headphone 3.5mm adapter included Volume Control: Balanced 4-Way precision analogue, can be bypassed for Line Outs Dynamic Range: >119dB THD &N (Line) < 0.001% HP Out Gain: 0dB, 10dB and 20dB user-selectable THD &N (HP 100mW) < 0.003% Output Power (16R): > 3000mW maybe some micro fans will upgrade and sell their micros? which could mean i get one sooner than planned. |
|
Javier
Administrator
Digital bytes
Posts: 987
|
Post by Javier on Apr 20, 2015 18:50:35 GMT
IMO you can only strech the DSD1793's performance to a point and the micro should be about it, of course, more expensive is always better, right? If one needs balanced then I could understand...
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,091
|
Post by Rabbit on Apr 20, 2015 19:18:06 GMT
I don't know, Simon. I'm pretty chuffed with my Micro and not certain that I would hear or be able to exploit the performance of the new one. My current laptop which isn't a top notxh one with regards to speed does struggle with high rate DSD.
It's damned good even now using ASIO on Foobar or even better, but uses a lot of power using DSD on HQ Player. High quality files are just mouth wateringly good.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,091
|
Post by Rabbit on Apr 21, 2015 18:39:22 GMT
|
|
oldson
extremely active
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by oldson on Apr 22, 2015 18:06:52 GMT
are there different revisions of the idsd micro?
have seen pics of them with usb2 A sockets and blue usb3 B sockets.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,091
|
Post by Rabbit on Apr 22, 2015 18:48:32 GMT
You can install updates but the one I bought has the latest update already on it.
|
|
