The best way possible to build an active system.

Blizzard · Oct 8, 2015

Hi guys,

I've been working on an active system for a while now. This is a cost no object system, where only the finest methods of handling every aspect will be acceptable. How I have it figured is, the best way an active system can be built with today's technology is by using PC based 64 bit floating point DSP/Room correction/Xover software, combined with a state of the art multichannel DAC such as the Merging NADAC or Hapi. Try finding a DSP chip based system that does 64 bit floating point DSP, is native DSD 256 capable, and has the specs to match a Merging NADAC or Hapi. If your unfamiliar with the NADAC, check out this review, it was the finest DAC David Robinson ever tested out of 300 reviews!

http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/impressions-the-merging-technology-nadac-mc-8-dsd-dac/

And from what I'm told, the Hapi uses the same DAC board.

If your a fan of vinyl, you'll need an A/D converter and phono stage to rip your vinyl to digital with an DSP based system. When you use something like the DEQX, it just does this on the fly with mediocre A/D's. So if you opt for the Hapi, you can add the state of the art A/D board (which is well known to be among the finest A/D on the planet) and rip your vinyl to your PC at up to DSD 256 resolution, and store on your HDD or NAS along with the rest of your digital collection. There is no better possible way you will hear your vinyl today through an active system. Another big bonus is you just have to rip once, and put it in the sleeve to be perfectly preserved with no wear and tear. Think of the wear and tear you'll save on your turn table and cartridge only having to play each record once. And think of the convenience of being able to cue up your vinyl via mobile app. You'll still have the sound of your turntable perfectly preserved, combined with the convenience of mobile app GUI control.

So what's it cost for a full blown system based on the Hapi? Well the Hapi with both DAC and A/D boards is $5800 U.S. If you don't need the A/D, drop $1800 off that.

Then software like Acourate costs $400. Media player software another $150. If you need the A/D section for vinyl ripping, $2000 should get you a pretty decent phono stage. Then all you need is a decent server PC. Well $2000 should buy that.

So just over $10000 for full out native DSD 256 capable analog/digital setup, or $6650 for digital only.

If anybody knows a better way at any price to build an active system, please let me know. As I'm still in the learning process.

Thanks.

Nyal Mellor · Oct 8, 2015

Blizzard said:
Hi guys,

I've been working on an active system for a while now. This is a cost no object system, where only the finest methods of handling every aspect will be acceptable. How I have it figured is, the best way an active system can be built with today's technology is by using PC based 64 bit floating point DSP/Room correction/Xover software, combined with a state of the art multichannel DAC such as the Merging NADAC or Hapi. Try finding a DSP chip based system that does 64 bit floating point DSP, is native DSD 256 capable, and has the specs to match a Merging NADAC or Hapi. If your unfamiliar with the NADAC, check out this review, it was the finest DAC David Robinson ever tested out of 300 reviews!

http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/impressions-the-merging-technology-nadac-mc-8-dsd-dac/

And from what I'm told, the Hapi uses the same DAC board.

If your a fan of vinyl, you'll need an A/D converter and phono stage to rip your vinyl to digital with an DSP based system. When you use something like the DEQX, it just does this on the fly with mediocre A/D's. So if you opt for the Hapi, you can add the state of the art A/D board (which is well known to be among the finest A/D on the planet) and rip your vinyl to your PC at up to DSD 256 resolution, and store on your HDD or NAS along with the rest of your digital collection. There is no better possible way you will hear your vinyl today through an active system. Another big bonus is you just have to rip once, and put it in the sleeve to be perfectly preserved with no wear and tear. Think of the wear and tear you'll save on your turn table and cartridge only having to play each record once. And think of the convenience of being able to cue up your vinyl via mobile app. You'll still have the sound of your turntable perfectly preserved, combined with the convenience of mobile app GUI control.

So what's it cost for a full blown system based on the Hapi? Well the Hapi with both DAC and A/D boards is $5800 U.S. If you don't need the A/D, drop $1800 off that.

Then software like Acourate costs $400. Media player software another $150. If you need the A/D section for vinyl ripping, $2000 should get you a pretty decent phono stage. Then all you need is a decent server PC. Well $2000 should buy that.

So just over $10000 for full out native DSD 256 capable analog/digital setup, or $6650 for digital only.

If anybody knows a better way at any price to build an active system, please let me know. As I'm still in the learning process.

Thanks.

I think the hardest thing is not the hardware / DSP but the actual design and construction of the speakers. The design process would need to include a lot of speaker measurements (on and off axis) to determine what EQ to apply to the speakers and where to put the crossover slopes and indeed what slopes to use. It's a non-trivial process and really requires an anechoic chamber or at least a partially anechoic room (e.g. fully absorptive floor and ceilings with a large distance to the first reflection from side / front / back walls.

The best speaker I have heard (Lotus Granada) was active but used pretty basic DSP (parametric EQ, delays, etc) and A/D, D/A converters. I guess the message is that the digital side is much lower priority than the electro-acoustical speaker engineering part.

Blizzard · Oct 8, 2015

Nyal Mellor said:
I think the hardest thing is not the hardware / DSP but the actual design and construction of the speakers. The design process would need to include a lot of speaker measurements (on and off axis) to determine what EQ to apply to the speakers and where to put the crossover slopes and indeed what slopes to use. It's a non-trivial process and really requires an anechoic chamber or at least a partially anechoic room (e.g. fully absorptive floor and ceilings with a large distance to the first reflection from side / front / back walls.

The best speaker I have heard (Lotus Granada) was active but used pretty basic DSP (parametric EQ, delays, etc) and A/D, D/A converters. I guess the message is that the digital side is much lower priority than the electro-acoustical speaker engineering part.

Yes without a doubt, you can't skimp in this department. But I'm talking about the electronics end of things. You must choose a path to go down in this department first. Your choices here will be a limiting factor for the potential of the system. An audio system can only be as good as it's weakest link. The Lotus Granada's may have been superb, but it doesn't mean they couldn't be even better. One of the beautiful things about an active system is, as technology progresses, the electronics can be easily upgraded. Much easier when software based.

Nyal Mellor · Oct 8, 2015

Blizzard said:
Yes without a doubt, you can't skimp in this department. But I'm talking about the electronics end of things. You must choose a path to go down in this department first. Your choices here will be a limiting factor for the potential of the system. An audio system can only be as good as it's weakest link. The Lotus Granada's may have been superb, but it doesn't mean they couldn't be even better. One of the beautiful things about an active system is, as technology progresses, the electronics can be easily upgraded. Much easier when software based.

I would say you need to design the speakers first to understand what DSP you require.

Computer based DSP is attractive for many reasons but I think the speaker design is way, way more important than the electronics. Sure the Granada may have been better with a more sophisticated DSP but the way they had designed it would be a simple swap, since the DSP crossover was in an external box to the speakers.

IMO the optimum would be dedicated hardware running whatever DSP you need, not a general purpose OS like Windows or OSX. Along Trinnov lines. I've played somewhat with DSP on a computer for both two channel and home theater and always ended up going back to dedicated hardware.

I would not get hung up on the DSP. Dallasjustice had (or still has) a similar bias thinking that a general purpose computer with something like Acourate with the DSP done DIY would trump a properly engineered active speaker system which was designed by a talented speaker engineer with access to proper facilities for design & development. So in that respect I do not think you can do a DIY "ultimate" active system. You would buy it from someone.

Blizzard · Oct 8, 2015

Nyal Mellor said:
I would say you need to design the speakers first to understand what DSP you require.

Computer based DSP is attractive for many reasons but I think the speaker design is way, way more important than the electronics. Sure the Granada may have been better with a more sophisticated DSP but the way they had designed it would be a simple swap, since the DSP crossover was in an external box to the speakers.

IMO the optimum would be dedicated hardware running whatever DSP you need, not a general purpose OS like Windows or OSX. Along Trinnov lines. I've played somewhat with DSP on a computer for both two channel and home theater and always ended up going back to dedicated hardware.

I would not get hung up on the DSP. Dallasjustice had (or still has) a similar bias thinking that a general purpose computer with something like Acourate with the DSP done DIY would trump a properly engineered active speaker system which was designed by a talented speaker engineer with access to proper facilities for design & development. So in that respect I do not think you can do a DIY "ultimate" active system. You would buy it from someone.

Using higher end DAC's, A/D converters and DSP processing will take any active speaker design to a higher level. There's absolutely no drawbacks to making improvements to this area. And not every piece of software is exactly the same grade. Just like every piece of hardware is not the exact same grade.

Saying the electronic's aren't important in an active system, is just the same as saying the electronic's aren't important in a 2 channel passive system.

If you could explain how DSP chip based solutions are superior to PC based that would be great. And if you could show me a DSP chip based system that uses higher quality DAC's and A/D's than the Merging Hapi or NADAC that would be great as well. DSD 256 compatible DSP chip based solution would also be a first to my knowledge.

It's not just about the sophistication of the DSP algorithms and calculation resolution. It's also the hardware in the signal path. DSP chips add noise, and are limited in resolution capabilities. Also the designs on the market I've seen don't have DAC and A/D sections any where near the level of the Merging products.

And regarding the Trinnov, it's just a general purpose computer motherboard running software like Acourate, stuffed in a fancy case with DAC's, A/D's and all kinds of options all in 1. When I look at this picture, no matter how thick the aluminum is on the front panel, it doesn't scream high end.

View attachment 22589

And yes buying from someone else would be great advice for someone who has no idea how to build a system like this. Much the same as buying a loaf of bread would be better to buy at the bakery than bake yourself if you didn't know how to bake.

I seriously don't understand why people think DAC and A/D quality no longer matters when going active. A great experiment to try is to put the DSP chip based box, or Trinnov in unity bypass mode. (Doing this the signal will still pass through the DSP and DAC chips, just no DSP will be preformed on the signal just like a regular DAC) Then use it to replace your high end reference DAC you use in your 2 channel passive setup. If the sound doesn't match, or beat the dedicated high end 2 channel DAC, it's unsuitable as far as I'm concerned.

Groucho · Oct 8, 2015

I'm always mystified by the hardware fetish...

When it comes to DSP, the hardware side of things is irrelevant as long as it can do the required number of FLOPS. However, in the photo above I would home in on the fan as being a possible problem. If you are seriously worried about the difference between 32 and 64 bit maths, then the presence of a fan will be about a billion times more significant.

Keith_W · Oct 8, 2015

I am interested in what you find, Blizzard. As you know, I run a DEQX in my system. More specifically I would be interested in comparing that NADAC to my existing DAC to see if it really is as good as claimed.

Perhaps I missed it, but is this project of yours going to perform the calculations using DSD or PCM internally? Also, can you please explain why 64 bit floating point calculation is superior to 32 bit? This might be a bit too much to ask for a forum post, so perhaps you could link me to an article somewhere?

Incidentally, I don't have to design a speaker. I simply bought a speaker that I liked, and converted it to active. As a starting point, I simply mimicked all the crossover settings put in place by the manufacturer and took it from there. I am convinced that most manufacturers, if given a chance, would love to go active. There are too many benefits to ignore. However, this comes at a cost to the consumer in terms of a learning curve and market acceptance.

Blizzard · Oct 8, 2015

Groucho said:
I'm always mystified by the hardware fetish...

When it comes to DSP, the hardware side of things is irrelevant as long as it can do the required number of FLOPS. However, in the photo above I would home in on the fan as being a possible problem. If you are seriously worried about the difference between 32 and 64 bit maths, then the presence of a fan will be about a billion times more significant.

It is relevant if it involves putting extra sound degrading components in the signal chain. Also part of the hardware is the DAC's, A/D, I/V stages, power supplies, low phase noise clocks, board layouts, etc.

Blizzard · Oct 8, 2015

Keith_W said:
I am interested in what you find, Blizzard. As you know, I run a DEQX in my system. More specifically I would be interested in comparing that NADAC to my existing DAC to see if it really is as good as claimed.

Perhaps I missed it, but is this project of yours going to perform the calculations using DSD or PCM internally? Also, can you please explain why 64 bit floating point calculation is superior to 32 bit? This might be a bit too much to ask for a forum post, so perhaps you could link me to an article somewhere?

Incidentally, I don't have to design a speaker. I simply bought a speaker that I liked, and converted it to active. As a starting point, I simply mimicked all the crossover settings put in place by the manufacturer and took it from there. I am convinced that most manufacturers, if given a chance, would love to go active. There are too many benefits to ignore. However, this comes at a cost to the consumer in terms of a learning curve and market acceptance.

64 bit floating point processing allows for more sophisticated, and transparent algorithms, resulting in better sound. I'm not the guy to ask all the intricate technical details why. How I'm going to be doing things is when a native DSD track up to 256 is played, it will be upsampled to 256 (if not already 256) and converted to multibit DSD. This is where the DSP will be applied for volume control,xover and room correction. All PCM sources will be upsampled to DSD 256 as well before DSP is applied. From there it will head straight into 8 channels of pure DSD only DAC's with no SDM or internal filtering. Just a simple low pass filter kinda like the PS audio Directstream. I'm also going to use a blend of IIR and FIR to tune the system.

There's no reason you couldn't simply swap your DEQX with a Acourate/Merging Hapi setup and be up and running in no time.

dallasjustice · Oct 8, 2015

Uhm . . .have you actually tried using a Hapi with Acourate to take a measurement or use Acourate convolver with a Hapi?

The Hapi is a wonderful product and offers a lot. I think you should talk to Uli before you pull the trigger on any unit. In fact, it would be wise to post over on the Acourate yahoo forum and ask some others about their experiences with various hardware. As much as I support what you want to do, we must remember that we DSP'ers are a very small and insignificant cadre of enthusiasts. Our "needs" are viewed as quixotic.

Having a multi-client capable ASIO interface is very important, IMO. If you want to "stream" vinyl in Jriver you will need it. If you want to measure your convolution filters in REW, you must be multi-client.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about these things and money isn't a barrier for me on these types of products. I've found the best units available are Lynx Hilo and the Prism units. Also, I think the new Motu units are great for our strange little hobby.

Blizzard said:
Hi guys,

I've been working on an active system for a while now. This is a cost no object system, where only the finest methods of handling every aspect will be acceptable. How I have it figured is, the best way an active system can be built with today's technology is by using PC based 64 bit floating point DSP/Room correction/Xover software, combined with a state of the art multichannel DAC such as the Merging NADAC or Hapi. Try finding a DSP chip based system that does 64 bit floating point DSP, is native DSD 256 capable, and has the specs to match a Merging NADAC or Hapi. If your unfamiliar with the NADAC, check out this review, it was the finest DAC David Robinson ever tested out of 300 reviews!

http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/impressions-the-merging-technology-nadac-mc-8-dsd-dac/

And from what I'm told, the Hapi uses the same DAC board.

If your a fan of vinyl, you'll need an A/D converter and phono stage to rip your vinyl to digital with an DSP based system. When you use something like the DEQX, it just does this on the fly with mediocre A/D's. So if you opt for the Hapi, you can add the state of the art A/D board (which is well known to be among the finest A/D on the planet) and rip your vinyl to your PC at up to DSD 256 resolution, and store on your HDD or NAS along with the rest of your digital collection. There is no better possible way you will hear your vinyl today through an active system. Another big bonus is you just have to rip once, and put it in the sleeve to be perfectly preserved with no wear and tear. Think of the wear and tear you'll save on your turn table and cartridge only having to play each record once. And think of the convenience of being able to cue up your vinyl via mobile app. You'll still have the sound of your turntable perfectly preserved, combined with the convenience of mobile app GUI control.

So what's it cost for a full blown system based on the Hapi? Well the Hapi with both DAC and A/D boards is $5800 U.S. If you don't need the A/D, drop $1800 off that.

Then software like Acourate costs $400. Media player software another $150. If you need the A/D section for vinyl ripping, $2000 should get you a pretty decent phono stage. Then all you need is a decent server PC. Well $2000 should buy that.

So just over $10000 for full out native DSD 256 capable analog/digital setup, or $6650 for digital only.

If anybody knows a better way at any price to build an active system, please let me know. As I'm still in the learning process.

Thanks.

dallasjustice · Oct 8, 2015

Nyal Mellor said:
Dallasjustice had (or still has) a similar bias thinking that a general purpose computer with something like Acourate with the DSP done DIY would trump a properly engineered active speaker system which was designed by a talented speaker engineer with access to proper facilities for design & development. So in that respect I do not think you can do a DIY "ultimate" active system. You would buy it from someone.

I don't think this anymore. I totally agree that to fully realize the ultimate potential for a digitally active system, one needs a speaker designed from the ground up to be digitally active. The reason for this is the measurement process. IMO, the best measurements can only be taken in very large quasi-anechoic spaces or real anechoic spaces.

An excellent example would be a speaker like the JBL M2.

Blizzard · Oct 8, 2015

dallasjustice said:
Uhm . . .have you actually tried using a Hapi with Acourate to take a measurement or use Acourate convolver with a Hapi?

The Hapi is a wonderful product and offers a lot. I think you should talk to Uli before you pull the trigger on any unit. In fact, it would be wise to post over on the Acourate yahoo forum and ask some others about their experiences with various hardware. As much as I support what you want to do, we must remember that we DSP'ers are a very small and insignificant cadre of enthusiasts. Our "needs" are viewed as quixotic.

Having a multi-client capable ASIO interface is very important, IMO. If you want to "stream" vinyl in Jriver you will need it. If you want to measure your convolution filters in REW, you must be multi-client.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about these things and money isn't a barrier for me on these types of products. I've found the best units available are Lynx Hilo and the Prism units. Also, I think the new Motu units are great for our strange little hobby.

I haven't tried Acourate with Hapi myself. What's the issue that would create problems with the combo? Also what do the other products you mentioned have over the Hapi or NADAC for active use?

My view for vinyl is just to make rips in DSD 256. Unless it's the process of putting the record in the turn table, cleaning the dust, flipping over and putting on wear and tear is why you like vinyl.

dallasjustice · Oct 8, 2015

Please talk to Uli. He's very nice and will help you. If you own Acourate, he provides a level of help that goes beyond customer service. I'd consider him a true mentor in this hobby. All of the things you are thinking about, he has experience there. Picking out hardware for DSP isn't the same as picking out hardware from your favorite hifi magazine. This is a totally different ballgame. We have very different needs. Find out what others are using and see how they are doing it. Swim with the fish.

Vinyl ripping is flawed and streaming vinyl is better, IMO. First, spinning a record on a well setup TT doesn't damage the record. Second, vinyl is variable and all discs require different levels. Third, stuff happens when recording vinyl. When it does, start over again. Fourth, it's fun to spin discs. Fifth, one is always improving their TT setup. Once you realize how you can make the setup better, you realize your recordings need to be redone. Sixth, why store all those enormous files when you can stream in high resolution in Jriver via ASIO line-in? That's how i do it. It's a lot of fun. I agree that digitizing vinyl can take vinyl to a whole new level if one takes the opportunity to us digital crossovers and target curves. One could even compensate for a slightly uneven RIAA correction. I will demo how I do this soon in a new thread in my sub forum.

Blizzard said:
I haven't tried Acourate with Hapi myself. What's the issue that would create problems with the combo? Also what do the other products you mentioned have over the Hapi or NADAC for active use?

My view for vinyl is just to make rips in DSD 256. Unless it's the process of putting the record in the turn table, cleaning the dust, flipping over and putting on wear and tear is why you like vinyl.

Keith_W · Oct 8, 2015

Blizzard said:
There's no reason you couldn't simply swap your DEQX with a Acourate/Merging Hapi setup and be up and running in no time.

Well there is one very good reason why I can't simply swap my DEQX with the system you are proposing - cost! Given that I know nobody locally who has this setup, I would have to buy all the components myself just to work out if it's enough of an improvement over my existing setup to justify the expenditure. But it's not that i'm against it, I am very much in favour of what you are doing - and I look forward to your updates with interest.

Blizzard · Oct 8, 2015

dallasjustice said:
Please talk to Uli. He's very nice and will help you. If you own Acourate, he provides a level of help that goes beyond customer service. I'd consider him a true mentor in this hobby. All of the things you are thinking about, he has experience there. Picking out hardware for DSP isn't the same as picking out hardware from your favorite hifi magazine. This is a totally different ballgame. We have very different needs. Find out what others are using and see how they are doing it. Swim with the fish.

Vinyl ripping is flawed and streaming vinyl is better, IMO. First, spinning a record on a well setup TT doesn't damage the record. Second, vinyl is variable and all discs require different levels. Third, stuff happens when recording vinyl. When it does, start over again. Fourth, it's fun to spin discs. Fifth, one is always improving their TT setup. Once you realize how you can make the setup better, you realize your recordings need to be redone. Sixth, why store all those enormous files when you can stream in high resolution in Jriver via ASIO line-in? That's how i do it. It's a lot of fun. I agree that digitizing vinyl can take vinyl to a whole new level if one takes the opportunity to us digital crossovers and target curves. One could even compensate for a slightly uneven RIAA correction. I will demo how I do this soon in a new thread in my sub forum.

I have talked to Uli, but haven't heard about any compatibility issues with the Hapi.

I have a hard time understanding how making vinyl rips is flawed. You won't get better sound out of digitizing vinyl than DSD256. You can apply all the same filter and even more with vinyl ripping software. Hard drive space is cheap these days. You can grab a 5tb hdd for just over $100 that can fit 1000 albums in DSD 256 quality. Also streaming on the fly is CPU intensive which degrades quality. The only reason to stream vinyl on the fly IMO is if you think the ritual is cool. Personally I think mobile app GUI's, and the better sound is cooler.

Keith_W · Oct 8, 2015

Another question, if you don't mind. As I understand it, you will be using the Hapi to perform A/D conversions. It then outputs DSD to a PC, which will calculate crossover slopes, apply correction, etc. The PC will then output multiple channels back to the Hapi (which has to be equipped with a multichannel sound card) for D/A conversion. Did I get this right?

Do you need a very powerful PC to perform these calculations? Would something the size of an Intel NUC be sufficient?

Blizzard · Oct 8, 2015

Keith_W said:
Well there is one very good reason why I can't simply swap my DEQX with the system you are proposing - cost! Given that I know nobody locally who has this setup, I would have to buy all the components myself just to work out if it's enough of an improvement over my existing setup to justify the expenditure. But it's not that i'm against it, I am very much in favour of what you are doing - and I look forward to your updates with interest.

Yeah well the software has free trials, and most people already have a computer. So you would just need a multichannel DAC and A/D if you want to rip vinyl. I guess if there's no local sources that would give you an in home trial on a multichannel DAC/A/D, you would just have to take the plunge. Most online retailers have a return policy.

Blizzard · Oct 8, 2015

Keith_W said:
Another question, if you don't mind. As I understand it, you will be using the Hapi to perform A/D conversions. It then outputs DSD to a PC, which will calculate crossover slopes, apply correction, etc. The PC will then output multiple channels back to the Hapi (which has to be equipped with a multichannel sound card) for D/A conversion. Did I get this right?

Do you need a very powerful PC to perform these calculations? Would something the size of an Intel NUC be sufficient?

I personally won't be using a Hapi. I'm building my own DAC. But for you, if you wanted to take this route, that's pretty much how it will work. You will also need media player software. HQplayer can apply the Acourate DSP to DSD. I know of no other software that can. If you want to do the upsampling to
DSD, then yes it will take a very powerful PC. For 8 channels, one of the high end Intel I7 8 core processors minimum. If your not upsampling to DSD, then it doesn't take too much power.

Here's what Uli says on the Acourate website:

Hardware requirements:

Of course a powerful CPU will lead to quicker calculations. But in general the range of Atom CPUs up to Intel-i7 is covered.
For AcourateConvolver convolution matrices with multiple filters, e.g. multiwayspeakers, it makes sense to use multicore CPUs for better threading.
2 GByte RAM is sufficient, but there is no reason against spending more RAM.

One of the new I7 NUC's would probably do the trick if your not upsampling.

Nyal Mellor · Oct 9, 2015

Blizzard said:
Using higher end DAC's, A/D converters and DSP processing will take any active speaker design to a higher level. There's absolutely no drawbacks to making improvements to this area. And not every piece of software is exactly the same grade. Just like every piece of hardware is not the exact same grade.

Saying the electronic's aren't important in an active system, is just the same as saying the electronic's aren't important in a 2 channel passive system.

If you could explain how DSP chip based solutions are superior to PC based that would be great. And if you could show me a DSP chip based system that uses higher quality DAC's and A/D's than the Merging Hapi or NADAC that would be great as well. DSD 256 compatible DSP chip based solution would also be a first to my knowledge.

It's not just about the sophistication of the DSP algorithms and calculation resolution. It's also the hardware in the signal path. DSP chips add noise, and are limited in resolution capabilities. Also the designs on the market I've seen don't have DAC and A/D sections any where near the level of the Merging products.

And regarding the Trinnov, it's just a general purpose computer motherboard running software like Acourate, stuffed in a fancy case with DAC's, A/D's and all kinds of options all in 1. When I look at this picture, no matter how thick the aluminum is on the front panel, it doesn't scream high end.

View attachment 22589

And yes buying from someone else would be great advice for someone who has no idea how to build a system like this. Much the same as buying a loaf of bread would be better to buy at the bakery than bake yourself if you didn't know how to bake.

I seriously don't understand why people think DAC and A/D quality no longer matters when going active. A great experiment to try is to put the DSP chip based box, or Trinnov in unity bypass mode. (Doing this the signal will still pass through the DSP and DAC chips, just no DSP will be preformed on the signal just like a regular DAC) Then use it to replace your high end reference DAC you use in your 2 channel passive setup. If the sound doesn't match, or beat the dedicated high end 2 channel DAC, it's unsuitable as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure how you got from what I posted to your reply.

I do believe quality of conversion makes a difference. And I also agree that swapping a lower performing active crossover with a better one will yield improvements,

You miss my point which is that going active unless you are simply reproducing existing crossover points, slopes and phase relationships is not something to be done trivially. To do it to a really high level you need proper facilities for measurement and knowledge of how to measure and how to set up the dsP to control the speaker behavior.

Btw the dsP part of the Trinnov is general purpose hardware running a custom Linux software. That's the best way to do it I think. They are not using dsP chips...but you can run Linux type custom software on dsP chips with good results...Datasat do that. Mainly I don't think a general purpose computer can be an ultimate type solution personally, but I might be wrong. I'm not sure there is anything on the market that you could not poke holes at. The merging nadac just seems like a nothing special standard ESS implementation with worse measurements than the Exasound products.

Blizzard · Oct 9, 2015

Nyal Mellor said:
I'm not sure how you got from what I posted to your reply.

I do believe quality of conversion makes a difference. And I also agree that swapping a lower performing active crossover with a better one will yield improvements,

You miss my point which is that going active unless you are simply reproducing existing crossover points, slopes and phase relationships is not something to be done trivially. To do it to a really high level you need proper facilities for measurement and knowledge of how to measure and how to set up the dsP to control the speaker behavior.

Btw the dsP part of the Trinnov is general purpose hardware running a custom Linux software. That's the best way to do it I think. They are not using dsP chips...but you can run Linux type custom software on dsP chips with good results...Datasat do that. Mainly I don't think a general purpose computer can be an ultimate type solution personally, but I might be wrong. I'm not sure there is anything on the market that you could not poke holes at. The merging nadac just seems like a nothing special standard ESS implementation with worse measurements than the Exasound products.

Yes obviously if your going to build a top notch state of the art system, the knowledge and equipment to do so will be a requirement. But the purpose of this thread is to talk about the best technology possible to use in such a system. If you setup a nice purpose built for audio PC, it can be every bit as good as what Trinnov has done, or even better.

You must have missed where I posted the review of the Merging NADAC on my first post of my thread:

http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/impressions-the-merging-technology-nadac-mc-8-dsd-dac/

It's light years above the Exasound E28. In fact the best DAC David Robinson has ever reviewed at any price. I'm not sure where the measurement data or the feedback you heard about this DAC came from. I haven't heard any feedback from anyone who has actually spent some time with one who wasn't blown away.

I think the closing paragraph to that review sums things up pretty good:

"If you have the budget to play in this range, there's simply no question that you need to put the NADAC at the top of your list of DSD DACs. If you can't get to a show or another site that's equipped with one to hear it for yourself, I'm going to go out on a limb and tell you that I would recommend a purchase, regardless. I'm confident that it's really that good…it's the best that I've heard in DSD and high-resolution PCM/DXD DACs to date!

Period.

Run. Do not walk. Get what I'm experiencing for yourself!"

And I'm quite familiar with Exasound. George and his team make excellent products. Here's my master clock modded E20 with a matching custom ultra low noise linear supply I built for it:

View attachment 22595
View attachment 22596

The best way possible to build an active system.

Banned

Industry Expert

Banned

Industry Expert

Banned

New Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Banned

Member Sponsor

Member Sponsor

Banned

Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Banned

Industry Expert

Banned

Similar threads