|
Post by matt@IAA on Aug 15, 2018 13:55:18 GMT -6
I'm seriously considering selling my 1248 for this.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 15, 2018 14:01:33 GMT -6
Holy crap...I'm stunned that this thing can connect via ethernet. I thought that was only for proprietary expansion capabilities. GC offered me $85 refund for the Tbolt port not working. Not sure if I'll do that or just return it and get the 828es. Or screw it all and stick with the Apogee. I will say this - I've been constantly A/Bing and I'm not so sure I don't prefer the sound of the Motu...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 14:04:51 GMT -6
What's the obsession with audio chipsets (I noticed this on GS as well)? What exactly do people believe they will hear between X and Y? (genuinely curious), quantization errors are placed in a summed voltage integrator and filtered into non-audible spectrums / decimated, SNR's / noisefloors are inaudible below roughly 96(ish) dB.! Jitter rejection, sure I could get that but nowadays not much of an issue. If you had 130dB of dynamic range popping straight at you, well lets say it wouldn't be pleasent. It's really cool that something like an ES9016 only uses a 100mw's worth of power but I'm not sure that many care about it. The newer technology chipsets are exponentially getting better with today's technology. In the same footprint of the legacy versions they're able to include things like distortion compensation and digital filters, along with more precision in making the chips which definitely makes them sound better. There were 16-bit sigma delta's well before the turn of the millenium using distortion compensation and digital filters, in fact that's the way Sigma delta works..
If you have 1-bit Sigma for example you'd have to oversample 415 to reach 16-bit and that ain't practicle. So they introduced such things as a noise shaping block containing a difference amp, comparator and Integrator (hence what I said before) and you'd have a digital filter that spreads the quantization noise outside audible frequency bands (as I said before)..
I can of course explain the entire thing if there's interest, but there's plenty of information on basic ADC design out there.
AD/DA chipsets aren't like analogue ciruitry, there are no inherent preferences (bar their statistical performance which is getting beyond the capacities of us humans).. They either get it right or they don't, it's like saying my Samsung SSD sounds better than my Kingston SSD. There was a time where jitter correction technologies could be attributed to some sound differentials, but when the likes of JetPLL got in the mix and especially with technology today even that's at best questionable.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 15, 2018 14:13:41 GMT -6
The newer technology chipsets are exponentially getting better with today's technology. In the same footprint of the legacy versions they're able to include things like distortion compensation and digital filters, along with more precision in making the chips which definitely makes them sound better. There were 16-bit sigma delta's well before the turn of the millenium using distortion compensation and digital filters, in fact that's the way Sigma delta works..
If you have 1-bit Sigma for example you'd have to oversample 415 to reach 16-bit and that ain't practicle. So they introduced such things as a noise shaping block containing a difference amp, comparator and Integrator (hence what I said before) and you'd have a digital filter that spreads the quantization noise outside audible frequency bands (as I said before)..
I can of course explain the entire thing if there's interest, but there's plenty of information on basic ADC design out there.
AD/DA's aren't like analogue ciruitry, there is no inherent preferences.. They either get it right or they don't, it's like saying my Samsung SSD sounds better than my Kingston SSD. There was a time where jitter correction technologies could be attributed to some sound differentials, but when the likes of JetPLL got in the mix and especially with technology today even that's at best questionable.
Ok.... But ESS didn't offer that in the ES9016/ES9018 and now in the new version they do, so that's what I am referring to. Have you sat down and listened to boxes with these different chipsets? I am speaking in the manner I'm speaking in because I've sat and listened and own the different ones, so I can tell you there are differences. Maybe you have sat and listened I have no idea. I do know that with the newer technology to build these chips the accuracy and abilities are allowing them to decrease distortion and anomalies etc. It's the same reason an OPA1612 sounds better than a JRC4558 on a pair of monitor outputs. Same basic setup, just newer technology in creating them.
|
|
|
Post by aremos on Aug 15, 2018 14:41:26 GMT -6
Sounds good! But for us still in PT HD hardware the Apogee (SII) would be the only way, correct?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 14:50:54 GMT -6
There were 16-bit sigma delta's well before the turn of the millenium using distortion compensation and digital filters, in fact that's the way Sigma delta works..
If you have 1-bit Sigma for example you'd have to oversample 415 to reach 16-bit and that ain't practicle. So they introduced such things as a noise shaping block containing a difference amp, comparator and Integrator (hence what I said before) and you'd have a digital filter that spreads the quantization noise outside audible frequency bands (as I said before)..
I can of course explain the entire thing if there's interest, but there's plenty of information on basic ADC design out there.
AD/DA's aren't like analogue ciruitry, there is no inherent preferences.. They either get it right or they don't, it's like saying my Samsung SSD sounds better than my Kingston SSD. There was a time where jitter correction technologies could be attributed to some sound differentials, but when the likes of JetPLL got in the mix and especially with technology today even that's at best questionable.
Ok.... But ESS didn't offer that in the ES9016/ES9018 and now in the new version they do, so that's what I am referring to. Have you sat down and listened to boxes with these different chipsets? I am speaking in the manner I'm speaking in because I've sat and listened and own the different ones, so I can tell you there are differences. Maybe you have sat and listened I have no idea. I do know that with the newer technology to build these chips the accuracy and abilities are allowing them to decrease distortion and anomalies etc. It's the same reason an OPA1612 sounds better than a JRC4558 on a pair of monitor outputs. Same basic setup, just newer technology in creating them.
How could you possibly tell chipset performance differences without proper (usually very expensive) analysis equipment (or at least FFT's / CORR's)? The surrounding analogue circuitry is what defines any subjective differences. AC has mainly been the weak point (especially over the last decade) in converter design. The only reason I even care to mention any of this is because there's so much bullshit in this industry, I've seen manufacturers quote theoretical maximum's of chipsets as a marketing spiel. Worst thing is, sometimes it works.
Although if they tell the truth, then the AC has to be sufficient enough to allow enough transparency to benefit from the chips. Nobody can tell the difference between 0.0001% THD+N vs. 0.0002% THD+N, nobody can pick out a -110dB noise floor and nobody can hear frequencies at 40KHZ+.. Burl? I get that, sticking transformers in the way of stuff and driving them is of course going to make a difference.
I'm not saying things don't go wrong, it's like CPU silicon manufacturing tolerances (whilst better these days) aren't absolute, in some other cases they can screw up the design although I hope the likes of MOTU, Lavry, Prism etc. know what they're doing. Hell I can do damage in ALSA / WASAPI or Media foundation (audio drivers)..
I'm all for subjective preferences but there's a limit where the realms of science come into play and ADDA chips fall into said category. The whole I "hear things" only goes so far and causes a LOT of confusion / worry when buying things like a new interface.. I'm all for being proven wrong via logic and scientific fact though.
Sorry John, I'll stop taking up your thread real estate..
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 15, 2018 14:55:46 GMT -6
Back to your corners, please. We are starting (starting?) to nerd out.
Just ordered the 828es. Will compared to the Symphony and report back.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 15, 2018 17:04:34 GMT -6
Ok.... But ESS didn't offer that in the ES9016/ES9018 and now in the new version they do, so that's what I am referring to. Have you sat down and listened to boxes with these different chipsets? I am speaking in the manner I'm speaking in because I've sat and listened and own the different ones, so I can tell you there are differences. Maybe you have sat and listened I have no idea. I do know that with the newer technology to build these chips the accuracy and abilities are allowing them to decrease distortion and anomalies etc. It's the same reason an OPA1612 sounds better than a JRC4558 on a pair of monitor outputs. Same basic setup, just newer technology in creating them.
How could you possibly tell chipset performance differences without proper (usually very expensive) analysis equipment (or at least FFT's / CORR's)?
Sorry John, I'll stop taking up your thread real estate.. My ears? Also most surrounding circuitry that designers go by is what is suggested in the data sheet, at least when I look at schematics and glance at the data sheet the set up is nearly the same. I won't argue that having better quality opamps and coupling caps make differences, but there again is my point that those are usually newer technology. OPA2134's replaced JRC4558's and NE5532's for the longest time, now it's the OPA16XX series, and they absolutely sound better. I'm just trying to understand what the huff and puff here is?
|
|
|
Post by BenjaminAshlin on Aug 15, 2018 17:19:48 GMT -6
Back to your corners, please. We are starting (starting?) to nerd out. Just ordered the 828es. Will compared to the Symphony and report back. Great, will wait to hear your feedback.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 15, 2018 17:30:40 GMT -6
If you guys keep swapping out hardware and changing your flows, you'll never settle down and learn the sound of the gear and how to make it translate..
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 15, 2018 17:32:22 GMT -6
How could you possibly tell chipset performance differences without proper (usually very expensive) analysis equipment (or at least FFT's / CORR's)?
Sorry John, I'll stop taking up your thread real estate.. My ears? Also most surrounding circuitry that designers go by is what is suggested in the data sheet, at least when I look at schematics and glance at the data sheet the set up is nearly the same. I won't argue that having better quality opamps and coupling caps make differences, but there again is my point that those are usually newer technology. OPA2134's replaced JRC4558's and NE5532's for the longest time, now it's the OPA16XX series, and they absolutely sound better. I'm just trying to understand what the huff and puff here is? I never thought the 1632 was better. In fact, I immediately thought them equal at best to the 553x series. Oh well. I really disliked the 2134/2604 too.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 15, 2018 17:40:53 GMT -6
Well, the 1632 is a bit different than the 1612 and 1642 though.... It is what Apogee uses going into the AKM ADC on their boards. Motu uses DIP opamps for differential, the 1632 is a differential so there could be some differences there. Same family, but I can hear a pretty significant difference in the OPA1612 and OPA1642.
I definitely like the NE553x chips more than the JRC455x chips. In a tube screamer I get it, and back when it was the amp of the day, I get it, but they've come lightyears from when that chip was king. The only chip I hate have to deal with is the NE5534's..... I'm not sure if the compensation cap does anything, but I know it won't work unless you've got it. Those chips came before I got into this, but was the NE5534 supposed to be an upgrade to the NE5532?
|
|
|
Post by winetree on Aug 15, 2018 18:36:57 GMT -6
Both released at the same time 5534 = Single 5532 = Dual
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 15, 2018 21:37:49 GMT -6
Well, the 1632 is a bit different than the 1612 and 1642 though.... It is what Apogee uses going into the AKM ADC on their boards. Motu uses DIP opamps for differential, the 1632 is a differential so there could be some differences there. Same family, but I can hear a pretty significant difference in the OPA1612 and OPA1642. I definitely like the NE553x chips more than the JRC455x chips. In a tube screamer I get it, and back when it was the amp of the day, I get it, but they've come lightyears from when that chip was king. The only chip I hate have to deal with is the NE5534's..... I'm not sure if the compensation cap does anything, but I know it won't work unless you've got it. Those chips came before I got into this, but was the NE5534 supposed to be an upgrade to the NE5532? They're not identical, meaning the 5532 is not a dual 5534, but they're in the same family. Probably 80% similar inside. The 1632, 1612, and 1642 are not even similar in design. One is a bjt, one a jfet, and one a full diff amp. They may have similar pieces, but fundamentally different architectures. Subbing something like the 1642 (jfet) in for the 1612(bjt) might gain a little top end due to the much higher impedance inputs, but your feedback network impedances won't be optimized for noise and loading, so you run the risk of ruining your distortion specs, and/or oscillating doing a sub like that without rescaling the resistors and caps.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 15, 2018 21:46:34 GMT -6
I love this, and the other, MOTU thread. This is what RGO is all about, IMO- the free exchange of thought, expertise, and common obsession with audio technology. I'm proud to have started the original thread!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 3:34:47 GMT -6
How could you possibly tell chipset performance differences without proper (usually very expensive) analysis equipment (or at least FFT's / CORR's)?
Sorry John, I'll stop taking up your thread real estate.. My ears? Also most surrounding circuitry that designers go by is what is suggested in the data sheet, at least when I look at schematics and glance at the data sheet the set up is nearly the same. I won't argue that having better quality opamps and coupling caps make differences, but there again is my point that those are usually newer technology. OPA2134's replaced JRC4558's and NE5532's for the longest time, now it's the OPA16XX series, and they absolutely sound better. I'm just trying to understand what the huff and puff here is?
The point is, it's scientifically impossible for your ears to tell the difference between decent, modern, "pro audio" AD/DA chipsets (it's proven as well). If you understand their function even at a core level they're not sonic shaping devices in the slightest as they're supposed to remove junk not add it, I did specify **additions to this but by in large today it's not an issue..
Something like an MOTU 1248 probably existed decades ago, the major differences were R&D costs / manufacturing etc. etc. these would of been classed as reference DAC's and probably cost you more than a Porsche (most likely the same size as one too).. Remember the Sony 3348HR? That was released in what 1993? That thing was capable of 105dB DR and 0.00(/)%?? harmonic distortion.. For the most part things have just gotten far smaller and a hell of a lot cheaper, except mobile phones for whatever reason (does not compute)..
Just a side note, if specc'd properly (and truthfully) it can give you a lot of insight... For e.g. 10 PS of Jitter @ 140MHZ would degrade the SNR to 41dB, poor clocking oscillation causing in phase noise via fundamental adjacent spread would reduce dynamic range. Broadband phase noise will elevate the noise floor throughout the Nyquist spectrum again reducing SNR..
So, you could even deduce clocking ain't too bad from spec. My issue has always been, can you trust them? As Svart said in the other thread, they tend to go through all this trouble just to have the drivers team mess stuff up anyway..
In 2018 the main factors IMO you should look for is stability, reliability, I/O, ease of use and additional cool stuff like zero latency HW monitoring with cue effects. AVB (well the concept) has been a thing within scientific and private sector industries for a while now but I'm glad the consumer market is following that direction because there's a lot of cool tech out there.
Don't get me wrong there are prosumer interfaces out there that look good on paper, but I'd still be weary of them..
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 16, 2018 5:16:13 GMT -6
Don't get me wrong there are prosumer interfaces out there that look good on paper, but I'd still be weary of them..
So what you're saying is that even in the prosumer equipment, chipsets are no longer the issue (I think). So what's to be weary of where bigger (volume wise) players like Motu and Apollo are concerned? And if its helpful - pick on the 828. Sonically speaking, and because of its price point what are the things that might make the 828 suspect?
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 16, 2018 5:47:42 GMT -6
I'll say this, too: the fact that it has a "monitoring section" including a volume control, an A/B speaker out, a mute, a mono button, and a talkback section is hella cool. Wish they had a remote control for it, but still, very cool. I guess the A/B monitors would eat up two more outputs, though. That'd be the browser app on your phone, should have the TB button there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 6:08:26 GMT -6
Don't get me wrong there are prosumer interfaces out there that look good on paper, but I'd still be weary of them..
So what you're saying is that even in the prosumer equipment, chipsets are no longer the issue (I think). So what's to be weary of where bigger (volume wise) players like Motu and Apollo are concerned? And if its helpful - pick on the 828. Sonically speaking, and because of its price point what are the things that might make the 828 suspect? Think of it like a 50 piece jigsaw puzzle set with a few starting pieces done for you, so the best AD/DA chips are very robust and do their job very well then you have the surrounding designs which try to leverage the innate capabilites of the chipsets.
I don't want to go too deep into this to the point it looks like an AES paper but here goes, you can have selectable filters in some AD/DA topology designs which needs to be invoked correctly, you also need techniques to eliminate noise via connectors to said chips (solving issues like thermoelectric potential).. Programming every portion of it from the FPGA's to the audio drivers (it doesn't matter how good the chips are if you mess this stuff up)..
Etc. etc. etc.
Point being it's not the AD/DA chips that are the issue here, it's everything else.. IF they know what they're doing there's several factors included in cost, the most obvious bit being the amount of I/O and quality of components. For example, if I wanted to step something up from 120dB to 123dB dynamic range I could go with feeding two DAC's from the FPGA into a summing amp, even though both streams are phase coherent there will always be randomly generated noise so you can make phase work to your advantage, by summing the out of phase random noise you can increase the SNR by 3dB... Cool stuff.!
Issue is for that small gain you've essentially doubled the cost, in a full interface you could be looking anywhere between 30 - 60 DAC's.. Then there's clocks, PCB's (with associated stuff), Pre-amp's, power supply's (again etc. etc.) which all have to be decent enough spec to not get in the way.. In short the more it does, the more it costs.
I spoke with one of the MOTU engineers and he was adament the specifications published were what they got in a myriad of testing, so I take their word for it and seen as the 828ES is in line with the rest of their equipment I've no real reason to doubt it. Again I'm not convinced by the drivers for Windows, but on MAC w/ core audio that's not a major issue.
As for UA, not a clue.. Until we can standardise the way testing methodologies are done unless you test it yourself it's a toss up, what I'm trying to say is DO NOT choose an interface by the chipset.. For the most part they are not the limiting factor.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by ericn on Aug 16, 2018 7:12:00 GMT -6
My ears? Also most surrounding circuitry that designers go by is what is suggested in the data sheet, at least when I look at schematics and glance at the data sheet the set up is nearly the same. I won't argue that having better quality opamps and coupling caps make differences, but there again is my point that those are usually newer technology. OPA2134's replaced JRC4558's and NE5532's for the longest time, now it's the OPA16XX series, and they absolutely sound better. I'm just trying to understand what the huff and puff here is?
The point is, it's scientifically impossible for your ears to tell the difference between decent, modern, "pro audio" AD/DA chipsets (it's proven as well). If you understand their function even at a core level they're not sonic shaping devices in the slightest as they're supposed to remove junk not add it, I did specify **additions to this but by in large today it's not an issue..
Something like an MOTU 1248 probably existed decades ago, the major differences were R&D costs / manufacturing etc. etc. these would of been classed as reference DAC's and probably cost you more than a Porsche (most likely the same size as one too).. Remember the Sony 3348HR? That was released in what 1993? That thing was capable of 105dB DR and 0.00(/)%?? harmonic distortion.. For the most part things have just gotten far smaller and a hell of a lot cheaper, except mobile phones for whatever reason (does not compute)..
Just a side note, if specc'd properly (and truthfully) it can give you a lot of insight... For e.g. 10 PS of Jitter @ 140MHZ would degrade the SNR to 41dB, poor clocking oscillation causing in phase noise via fundamental adjacent spread would reduce dynamic range. Broadband phase noise will elevate the noise floor throughout the Nyquist spectrum again reducing SNR..
So, you could even deduce clocking ain't too bad from spec. My issue has always been, can you trust them? As Svart said in the other thread, they tend to go through all this trouble just to have the drivers team mess stuff up anyway..
In 2018 the main factors IMO you should look for is stability, reliability, I/O, ease of use and additional cool stuff like zero latency HW monitoring with cue effects. AVB (well the concept) has been a thing within scientific and private sector industries for a while now but I'm glad the consumer market is following that direction because there's a lot of cool tech out there.
Don't get me wrong there are prosumer interfaces out there that look good on paper, but I'd still be weary of them..
OK growing up in northern/ centers WI in the 80’s I was lucky enough to be around the guys from WADIA, WADIA was probably the first universally excepted mastering/ Audiophile DA. Their approach was to use a software based DA rather than a off the market chip, they taught me to even today to look at converters as two parts; the part that gives you the Minecraft like waveform as something akin to a CPU with preprogrammed software and then the smoothing filtering. Consider today that consumers are moving more and more to low sample rates, are you actually saying that at 48hz and below there isn’t room for improvement in programming these devices to make more musical decisions? As these devices find themselves in more and more mobile, low power devices that there isn’t room for improvement in stability? That with all the phase issues surrounding filters they can’t be improved. Look When They first introduced the AR acoustic suspension speakers they would hide the system behind a screen and people would swear they were listening to a live performance, I’ll tell you what, go buy a pair of early AR’s and a 35 watt Dynaco and see if your monitors don’t create a more believable performance. I was listening to a second generation WADIA 20 bit AD a month ago, that thing was $15k new, my IPhone blew it away. Some times small incremental improvements in audio are hard to prove scientifically, our ears and brains do not perform in a predictable scientific manor, but if we step back a bit and in time a bunch of those small steps forward are magnified. Oh in the 60’s it was scientifically proven solid state sounded better than tubes, yet look at all that old tube gear and how much we all lust for it today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 7:55:30 GMT -6
Their approach was to use a software based DA rather than a off the market chip, they taught me to even today to look at converters as two parts; the part that gives you the Minecraft like waveform as something akin to a CPU with preprogrammed software and then the smoothing filtering.Consider today that consumers are moving more and more to low sample rates, are you actually saying that at 48hz and below there isn’t room for improvement in programming these devices to make more musical decisions? As these devices find themselves in more and more mobile, low power devices that there isn’t room for improvement in stability? That with all the phase issues surrounding filters they can’t be improved. Look When They first introduced the AR acoustic suspension speakers they would hide the system behind a screen and people would swear they were listening to a live performance, I’ll tell you what, go buy a pair of early AR’s and a 35 watt Dynaco and see if your monitors don’t create a more believable performance. I was listening to a second generation WADIA 20 bit AD a month ago, that thing was $15k new, my IPhone blew it away. Some times small incremental improvements in audio are hard to prove scientifically, our ears and brains do not perform in a predictable scientific manor, but if we step back a bit and in time a bunch of those small steps forward are magnified. Oh in the 60’s it was scientifically proven solid state sounded better than tubes, yet look at all that old tube gear and how much we all lust for it today.
#1 We're not talking about mobiles here, also AD/DA chipsets are nothing to do with "musical" that's not why they exist.. Their only purpose in life is to convert a signal to digital minus the crap that's caused by the process (like quantization errors), they are not transformers or tubes.. There's old Cirrus logic converters that can filter at 20hz -0.13dB variable.
#2 It's not about solid state vs. tubes, you cannot physically hear it.. As in the noise floor / SNR / THD etc. modern conversion places these things outside the capabilities of human hearing, how can one thing be better if to humans at least it doesn't actually exist? This is a whole tree in the woods scenario.
#3 Phase? I already went down the path of saying what the knock on effects of clocking / phase etc. are and if they're tested and specified properly it shows in the THD+N.. Guess what? Also beyond the realms of human hearing.
Yeah, I've worked with this stuff for a LONG time and for me the consumer market has been WAYYY behind for years.. Today though we're at a point where again the rest of the surrounding design is far more important than the chipset, which are still the issues I still face today..
If you want to talk about stepping filters for preferences etc. sure whatever floats your boat but that has nothing to do with the actual chip..
Although stability vs. power for high end AD/DA in mobile devices is an interesting topic.. Outside of the scope for this thread though .! I've gotten too much nerd on already.
P.S Speaking about minecraft, well because of the state of things I do that a lot nowadays ..!
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 16, 2018 8:31:51 GMT -6
While everyone is arguing about the "sound" of a converter, I posit a different viewpoint.
Distortion.
Distortion is simply the delta(difference) between a source signal, and the output signal. It's all encompassing to mean the changes that the conversion process makes to the source signal before/during/after digitization.
So, to say that a converter IC has 0.00001% distortion when used as designed, means that you have 99.9999% identical output signal to your input signal.. For all intents and purposes, that's identical.
Identical input and output signals will NOT sound different. That's impossible.
Converter IC designers are making these things damn near foolproof these days with VCC buffering, internal regulation, error handling, etc. It's almost hard to screw it up in hardware anymore, which is what i think @shadowamd is speaking to.
The places designers are changing the sound is in the analog domain, and in the software domain. Even then, it's becoming more likely that it's the software domain that imparts more sound on an audio stream that anywhere else, with the analog filtering being a close second and maybe clocking as the third.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 16, 2018 8:42:39 GMT -6
Don't get me wrong there are prosumer interfaces out there that look good on paper, but I'd still be weary of them..
So what you're saying is that even in the prosumer equipment, chipsets are no longer the issue (I think). So what's to be weary of where bigger (volume wise) players like Motu and Apollo are concerned? And if its helpful - pick on the 828. Sonically speaking, and because of its price point what are the things that might make the 828 suspect? I think that's what he's saying. The converter IC makes so little difference now as the chips are generally designed to be used in a well defined way. It's all the other pieces that make the difference now. With everything being a software defined stream that needs conversion between many formats and protocols, into and out of real-time and non-real-time formats, manipulated for timing considerations, then the onus for purity has been put on the softwares and drivers that touch that audio. But nobody considers any of these things, and because the money is spent on the hardware, the focus is on the hardware. As I proved with my converter, a single person can design and implement a hardware system in a relatively short period. However, it would take a team of software engineers longer to design and develop drivers and software to handle anything else with efficiency and purity across many platforms, OS's, transmission protocols, etc. I don't think the 828 will be suspect at all. MOTU has a lot of experience, and seems to only be getting better at what they do. It's just that everyone has expectations they want met. They want their idea of perfection made real, at a cost that is impossible!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 8:50:19 GMT -6
Converter IC designers are making these things damn near foolproof these days with VCC buffering, internal regulation, error handling, etc. It's almost hard to screw it up in hardware anymore, which is what i think @shadowamd is speaking to. The places designers are changing the sound is in the analog domain, and in the software domain. Even then, it's becoming more likely that it's the software domain that imparts more sound on an audio stream that anywhere else, with the analog filtering being a close second and maybe clocking as the third. Exactly, from the event of JetPLL (like clock conditioners / cleaners (dual loop low noise PLL's)) + better technologies today (like I mentioned in the other thread) even Jitter (which is measured) ain't a massive thing to sweat over.
In essence, shoo, shoo go make some music..!
|
|
|
Post by dror520 on Aug 21, 2018 0:18:50 GMT -6
How does the Presonus Quantum compare to the 828es?
|
|