Ultimate active setup

Blizzard · Jan 18, 2016

bibo01 said:
Well...Thuneau's Frequency Allocator was pretty good for a 5.1 system with active bi-amplification of Magnepan 3.6, center, backL/R + AudioKinesis Swarm 2 (4 subs system)

Tried that too and pretty good. Fabfilter/pure music (OSX)

http://www.hifizine.com/2013/06/pure-music-fabfilter-proq-active-speaker/

and Fabfilter/Jriver on Windows/OSX is another really cool option. Maybe even the best if DSD support isn't needed.

http://www.fabfilter.com/products/pro-q-2-equalizer-plug-in

bibo01 · Jan 18, 2016

Blizzard said:
Tried that too and pretty good. Fabfilter/pure music (OSX)

http://www.hifizine.com/2013/06/pure-music-fabfilter-proq-active-speaker/

and Fabfilter/Jriver on Windows/OSX is another really cool option. Maybe even the best if DSD support isn't needed.

http://www.fabfilter.com/products/pro-q-2-equalizer-plug-in

Yes, it is pretty good too. But I am not sure that Fabfilter is capable to have different crossover frequencies between each LPF-HFP and more than 24 dB/oct slopes as I needed.

Blizzard · Jan 18, 2016

bibo01 said:
Yes, it is pretty good too. But I am not sure that Fabfilter is capable to have different crossover frequencies between each LPF-HFP and more than 24 dB/oct slopes as I needed.

Yes watch the video I posted. Up to 96dB/oct slopes. As many channels as you want.

bibo01 · Jan 18, 2016

Blizzard said:
Yes watch the video I posted. Up to 96dB/oct slopes. As many channels as you want.

Yes, I saw it. Pro-Q2 is extremely flexible and more modern than Frequency Allocator. It does support high slopes among many other features, but I still did not see any support for different xo frequencies.

Blizzard · Jan 18, 2016

bibo01 said:
Yes, I saw it. Pro-Q2 is extremely flexible and more modern than Frequency Allocator. It does support high slopes among many other features, but I still did not see any support for different xo frequencies.

You shape your own xover, based on a plethora of slopes and filters, embed room correction all kinds of stuff into it, save it, and assign it to the channel. Or build the xover slopes for each channel, then apply the room correction to the summed finished result.

You can do anything with this software. I wish it was compatible with HQplayer.

Blizzard · Jan 18, 2016

I just discovered Voxengo just released a new EQ program like Fabfilter, but with multichannel support all at once:

http://www.voxengo.com/product/primeeq/

Keith_W · Jan 19, 2016

Blizzard said:
But what you are thinking using 2 different DAC's is a bad idea as they won't have master clock sync, and no way to hook them up simultaneously without using a multichannel AES/EBU card like the RME-HDSPe. Then you're limited to 24/192 PCM.

http://www.rme-audio.de/en/products/hdspe_aes.php

If your DAC's have word clock in, and you're ok with 24/192 max resolution, the RME-HDSPe is an option that will work.

Thank you! I understand that using the RME-HDSPe option will not give me quad DSD resolution? The only option that will give me that is using the Ravenna protocol to transfer data to a Hapi or NADAC?

bibo01 said:
You cannot do offline upsampling with HQPlayer.

Thank you.

Kal Rubinson said:
How will you do this? Multiple S/PDIFs? Also, the DACs need to be synched and that, probably, means that they need a common clock.

I don't know, which is why i'm asking.

Why is there a concern about the USB interface?

I cannot make any pretense of computer expertise but my i7 runs 6channels at any resolution (up to DSD256, PCM up to 192, DXD) with bass management and room correction (except for DSD) via USB to the e28 as well as occasional upsampling without any burps................................... and simultaneously feeding all of the preceding to the NADAC via Ravenna so I can A/B them.

I am under the impression that USB 2.0 may be bandwidth limited. I don't know if the bandwidth is wide enough for 8 channels of quad DSD, which is why i'm asking. If you have no trouble doing this, it's good to know.

Blizzard · Jan 19, 2016

Keith_W said:
Thank you! I understand that using the RME-HDSPe option will not give me quad DSD resolution? The only option that will give me that is using the Ravenna protocol to transfer data to a Hapi or NADAC?

Thank you.

I don't know, which is why i'm asking.

I am under the impression that USB 2.0 may be bandwidth limited. I don't know if the bandwidth is wide enough for 8 channels of quad DSD, which is why i'm asking. If you have no trouble doing this, it's good to know.

For quad DSD over 8 channels, you only have 3 options commercially available. The NADAC, Hapi and Exasound E28. And like I confirmed in a previous post, the Exasound can do DSD 256 over 8 channels via USB.

If you go with the Exa, I would buy Astrotoy's unit for 2K. If your gonna pay full price, I'd just spend a bit more and get the Hapi. It would be also nice to run fiber optics to the Hapi from the big power house server located in a different room, rather than having it in your equipment rack connected to the DAC via USB.

bibo01 · Jan 19, 2016

Keith,

There is no problem for 8ch DSD256 over USB.
One stereo DSD256 track is 21.52 Mb/s. So 8ch is 21.52 x 4 = 86.08 Mbit/s
USB 2.0 limit is 480 Mbit/s

Blizzard · Jan 19, 2016

bibo01 said:
Keith,

There is no problem for 8ch DSD256 over USB.
One stereo DSD256 track is 21.52 Mb/s. So 8ch is 21.52 x 4 = 86.08 Mbit/s
USB 2.0 limit is 480 Mbit/s

As long as it's not DoP. It's the processing power of the chip that maxes out before the bandwidth on USB interfaces. The new Xmos Xcore 200 chips can handle some serious USB processing. Especially the 32 core unit.

Keith_W · Jan 19, 2016

Blizzard said:
For quad DSD over 8 channels, you only have 3 options commercially available. The NADAC, Hapi and Exasound E28. And like I confirmed in a previous post, the Exasound can do DSD 256 over 8 channels via USB.

Thank you.

I have thought a bit about the clocking problem. There are some units that reclock the digital signal, e.g. the Playback MPS-5 and the DCS Rossini. Would it be possible to send the mid/high freqs to a Rossini (via USB) and everything else to a Hapi via Ravenna?

bibo01 · Jan 19, 2016

Blizzard said:
As long as it's not DoP. It's the processing power of the chip that maxes out before the bandwidth on USB interfaces. The new Xmos Xcore 200 chips can handle some serious USB processing. Especially the 32 core unit.

Not many DAC do 8ch DSD256 in DoP!

None of the 3 you mentioned do.
Anyway, adding 50% more nìbandwidth for DoP is easy.

bibo01 · Jan 19, 2016

Keith,

I can tell you that Hapi can act as pre, however, it is the usual decent Sabre volume control - it's not top.
Two friends of mine, one has a Audio Research Ls27, the other one has a passive pre Tortuga.

Another thing is Hapi's Ravenna is rather independent of PC's hardware. Indeed, two fiber optics interfaces - as suggested by Blizz - have more effect than, for example, a LPS on the PC. In a way, even a good notebook is fine as long as its integrated Ethernet is good.

BTW, with Win10 there can be problems to connect a notebook to Hapi directly with no switch, due to energy saving issues. No problems with earlier OSs or with a desktop.

Blizzard · Jan 19, 2016

Keith_W said:
Thank you.

I have thought a bit about the clocking problem. There are some units that reclock the digital signal, e.g. the Playback MPS-5 and the DCS Rossini. Would it be possible to send the mid/high freqs to a Rossini (via USB) and everything else to a Hapi via Ravenna?

The reclocking is the problem. It won't be in sync with the other DAC. Not sure why you would think the Hapi wouldn't be adequate for the task on it's own. Especially upsampling everything to DSD.

Blizzard · Jan 19, 2016

bibo01 said:
Keith,

I can tell you that Hapi can act as pre, however, it is the usual decent Sabre volume control - it's not top.
Two friends of mine, one has a Audio Research Ls27, the other one has a passive pre Tortuga.

Another thing is Hapi's Ravenna is rather independent of PC's hardware. Indeed, two fiber optics interfaces - as suggested by Blizz - have more effect than, for example, a LPS on the PC. In a way, even a good notebook is fine as long as its integrated Ethernet is good.

BTW, with Win10 there can be problems to connect a notebook to Hapi directly with no switch, due to energy saving issues. No problems with earlier OSs or with a desktop.

But you can't bypass the volume control in the Sabre chip anyways, so might as well use it. What would the benefit be of using the passive pre with this DAC, (other than remote volume control) since the signal is running through the bank in the chip with the volume control anyways? The noise floor of the DAC is low enough that noise shouldn't be an issue at any volume level. The passive pre, it doesn't add any gain, so you are still driving the input stage of the amp with the Hapi output stage anyways.

I can see someone hearing a perceived benefit with the Audio Research as it will add nice tube coloration's which someone who likes tubes would enjoy.

What are your friends using for amps? He will need a 8 channel preamp if he went with a preamp.

The best thing to do with this system would be to just set the volume control on the Hapi to the max level you would ever listen at. Then use the Roon iPad app to control the HQplayer 64 bit volume control.

bibo01 · Jan 19, 2016

My friends use the Hapi in a 2ch system.
The one with AR pre has krell fpb 400cx power amp and Opera Grand Callas 2014 speakers.
The one with Tortuga passive pre has ATC amplified speakers. He preferred the sound by keeping Hapi on 0 dB and use his passive pre, rather than using Hapi's volume control.

Blizzard · Jan 19, 2016

bibo01 said:
My friends use the Hapi in a 2ch system.
The one with AR pre has krell fpb 400cx power amp and Opera Grand Callas 2014 speakers.
The one with Tortuga passive pre has ATC amplified speakers. He preferred the sound by keeping Hapi on 0 dB and use his passive pre, rather than using Hapi's volume control.

I would love to compare that for myself. As the Tortuga is supposed to be super transparent, but you still have the interconnects, and some extra circuity you're running the signal through. According to this video, with a DAC that has a noise floor as low as the Hapi, the Sabre chip volume control would be almost impossible to beat. Using a DAC that had a chip with DSD volume bypass, this is another story completely, and bypassing the volume control, also bypasses the section of the chip the does the multibit conversion which degrades quality. But this isn't an option with the Sabre chips anyways. You are running through that section either way.

But I definitely agree with this statement from the Tortuga website, although very hard to convince some that it's true. even when the manufacturers of the gear tell them:

"You Don’t Need The Gain

Long ago and far away there was a time and place when most audio sources had weak outputs and amps were mostly low powered. To make up for this preamplifiers were designed to actively boost the voltage level of the audio signal to achieve sufficient loudness. This boost is referred to as “gain”.

Today, it’s rare that you need to actually pre-amplify the audio signal. Adding a gain stage when you don’t need one inevitably degrades the audio signal and puts greater distance between the true sound of the recording and what you hear coming out of your stereo.

Why pre-amplify before your amplify? Think about it."

And to add to that, most amplifiers have a gain stage input buffer anyways.

Keith_W · Jan 19, 2016

Blizzard said:
Not sure why you would think the Hapi wouldn't be adequate for the task on it's own.

Because it uses a Sabre chip. I would rather not get into an argument about Sabre chips, all i'll say is that I have heard enough of them to know that they are inferior to what I already have. I don't share your view that preamplification is useless. I think that if the output stage of a DAC is sufficient, then you don't need a preamp. But unfortunately ... even DAC's as high end as a DCS benefit from preamplification.

Blizzard · Jan 19, 2016

Keith_W said:
Because it uses a Sabre chip. I would rather not get into an argument about Sabre chips, all i'll say is that I have heard enough of them to know that they are inferior to what I already have. I don't share your view that preamplification is useless. I think that if the output stage of a DAC is sufficient, then you don't need a preamp. But unfortunately ... even DAC's as high end as a DCS benefit from preamplification.

You heard enough Sabre chips using HQplayer resampling all PCM to DSD and you don't like the sound? If so, I guess you're out of luck unless you build yourself something custom.

About preamplification, it all depends on what you consider benefiting. Adding coloration? Because that's all putting extra circuitry in the signal path will achieve, if the DAC has an output stage sufficient enough to drive your amps to full potential already. A preamp isn't going to put more information into the source content than was part of the original music. All of that is handled at the studio. Personally I would never buy a DAC this day and age in a million years that couldn't drive an amp direct sufficiently. What some manufacturers have clued into lately is just calling them DAC/pre's. The simple change of calling them that rather than just a DAC, miraculously makes them sufficient to drive amps direct. After all it's not often you find people buying preamps for their preamps. Although I can imagine many would claim great benefit's if they tried it.

Kal Rubinson · Jan 19, 2016

Blizzard said:
For quad DSD over 8 channels, you only have 3 options commercially available. The NADAC, Hapi and Exasound E28. And like I confirmed in a previous post, the Exasound can do DSD 256 over 8 channels via USB.

One other option is to use a stack of Mytek DACs with their clocks linked.

Ultimate active setup

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Similar threads