Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2015 5:57:43 GMT -6
Cough...
i guess svart does not expect you to send the production prototype back...ever...or does he? o.O
It would be great if you could organize a duel shootout svartbox against superbeast and RM4222ADC. Let's face it, this would be the final competition. The svartbox could possibly outperform in the AD section, due to the usage of the ADA4898 as input opamp. Plus, it's ADC and DAC in one box.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 24, 2015 6:00:04 GMT -6
Glad to hear svart's box is sounding good!
2 things, SB(svartbox)Probably not the best acronym for a box competing with the SB(superbeast), which brings us to JK's RM 1794 DAC, it's not the same as the RM Superbeast, the Superbeast is the DAC that svarts rig was designed to match up favorably to, single channels op amps, single DA chips, iso ps rails per channel. Gotta be apples to apples with comparisons, the 2 should sound very very similar I'd think.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 24, 2015 6:05:50 GMT -6
I mean no disrespect to JK at all, we all know he's great, but dandeurloo needs to get his hands on the svartbox to put up against his RM ADDA superbeast for some comps. to be very clear, I'm routing for svarts box to kick total ass on everything out there! |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Apr 24, 2015 6:09:55 GMT -6
It's great to have great options !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2015 6:27:12 GMT -6
BTW...
For those who doesn't notice yet, RM has a new revision superbeast II in the works, already announced with slightly higher pricing for the pcb redesign for 4 layers and upgraded psu. I guess it's the reaction to superbeasts coming back into service with heat issue ADA4898 chips and overall stability improvement...
The svartbox already is designed with all possible heat issues of the high performance opamps in mind and cared for it, from what i read so far.
John, how warm does the unit get when in use for a while? Is it a completely closed box or does it have ventilation holes?
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 24, 2015 7:33:35 GMT -6
BTW... For those who doesn't notice yet, RM has a new revision superbeast II in the works, already announced with slightly higher pricing for the pcb redesign for 4 layers and upgraded psu. I guess it's the reaction to superbeasts coming back into service with heat issue ADA4898 chips and overall stability improvement... The svartbox already is designed with all possible heat issues of the high performance opamps in mind and cared for it, from what i read so far. John, how warm does the unit get when in use for a while? Is it a completely closed box or does it have ventilation holes? The one I sent him is just a functional prototype, not a finished one. It had no lid on it, nor did it have the plastic front bezel. I'm contemplating the type of lids to use. I initially had solid tops, but I might go with ventilated tops for more heat control. The units still get pretty warm inside, and the chassis gets warm to the touch on the outside since I use the chassis as a large heatsink, but certainly not dangerously hot. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 24, 2015 7:34:42 GMT -6
I mean no disrespect to JK at all, we all know he's great, but dandeurloo needs to get his hands on the svartbox to put up against his RM ADDA superbeast for some comps. to be very clear, I'm routing for svarts box to kick total ass on everything out there! I hope that dandeurloo will be willing to do some testing. I'll have john send the unit to him next if he's willing to compare the two for us. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 24, 2015 7:37:58 GMT -6
John, your description of the difference between the RM1794 and the svartbox pretty much sums up pretty exactly what the difference in output opamps seems can do for the sound quality of pcm1794a converters. When i posted my experiences comparing the same RM converter to the Superbeast, i used very similar words to describe it. If the design is right, the ADA4898 seems to have better transfer of low mid and bass frequencies, resulting in a truer stereo image also. So i pretty much assume, the difference you hear now is at least on par with the difference between RM1794 and superbeast. Seems the svartbox does it's duty very well. Would love to hear a shootout svartbox vs. superbeast. It may be possible, you can't even distinguish one from another when ABX listening. This said, the superbeast is the best DA conversion i heard so far, followed by the RM1794 you use, which is pretty on par with the Motu 24Ao... As a complete stereo AD/DA....very tempting for everyone in need of a quality stereo box for adding high end stereo recording and monitoring conversion or an analog chain extension for a DAW.... Yummy. One of the biggest differences on the DAC side is that I used a Wolfson receiver chip. It has better jitter specs on the recovered SPDIF clock than the chips that RM uses. The rest is mostly the same except for the layout, which matters for signal integrity, but won't make a device sound too different. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 24, 2015 7:43:19 GMT -6
So here are my initial reactions from 2 hours of going back and forth between this and the RM1794. This is obviously only for the DA side of the unit. Now, I've only been listening to HD Tracks wavs - Gregory Porter @ 24/96, same with Steely Dan...and the Eagles @ 24/196...I haven't delved into my own recordings. But here are my thoughts. 1. Both the Svartbox (SB) and Ross Martin (RM) sound great. If I have the extra time, I'll compare to the Apollo, but there's not really any need. The RM was MUCH better than the Apollo DA - haven't compared to the SB 2. The SB seems to have a slightly more detailed top end than the RM. I don't know which one is more true...but I know that it resulted in the songs seeming more detailed (without any hint of harshness) with the SB. 3. The RM seemed a bit more forward in the low mids (200-500) to my ear. Maybe that's why it felt a little less detailed. (That's being extremely picky) 4. IMO, the SB has a wider stereo field and more depth. The RM seemed less 3 dimensional. I know these are such incredible cliches - but I swear to you, that is the best way to explain what I heard. I could hear reverb tails, movement, a phaser on the beginning of Hotel California I'd never heard before, damper pedal releases - all seemed more clear on the SB. I actually found myself going, "hmm, the predelay is pretty high on that vocal..." WTF? Maybe that's more of a glowing endorsement for these high def recordings, but hey - something has to translate it. 5. For some reason - the RM is about 3-4db louder than the SB. Don't know why...the SB is 1/4' out...the RM is xlr? 6. The Eagles are America's answer to the Beatles. I love them both. Now - I want this box to be good...but I have zero financial stake in it. If the results had been different, I probably would have just kinda gracefully bowed out of the conversation. But it's really great. Maybe I'll live with it for a while longer and hate it (doubt that)...but my initial thought is that it's even better than the already great RM box. It's great for you to do this testing for us, thanks again. Can you tell us more about how you have it set up? Are you running the system clocked from my ADC portion? What bit/samplerate settings are you using? Did you have any issues getting this set up on your system? The 1/4" I/O is balanced and differential, so it's the same type of signal that would be on an XLR connector, just in a more compact form. I scaled my I/O levels a little differently, that's why you hear a couple dB of difference, nothing to be alarmed at. I contemplated sending a unit that had both ceramic and film caps in the audio path. I sent you one with film caps even though I prefer the ceramic cap tone myself, I find it ever so slightly more sparkly. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 24, 2015 7:48:27 GMT -6
John, your description of the difference between the RM1794 and the svartbox pretty much sums up pretty exactly what the difference in output opamps seems can do for the sound quality of pcm1794a converters. When i posted my experiences comparing the same RM converter to the Superbeast, i used very similar words to describe it. If the design is right, the ADA4898 seems to have better transfer of low mid and bass frequencies, resulting in a truer stereo image also. So i pretty much assume, the difference you hear now is at least on par with the difference between RM1794 and superbeast. Seems the svartbox does it's duty very well. Would love to hear a shootout svartbox vs. superbeast. It may be possible, you can't even distinguish one from another when ABX listening. This said, the superbeast is the best DA conversion i heard so far, followed by the RM1794 you use, which is pretty on par with the Motu 24Ao... As a complete stereo AD/DA....very tempting for everyone in need of a quality stereo box for adding high end stereo recording and monitoring conversion or an analog chain extension for a DAW.... Yummy. When I was writing that, I remembered you posting about the slight differences in the Superbeast and the 1794...I didn't remember the differences (and I'm a tech knucklehead, so it wouldn't have made much sense to me anyway) - but I was wondering if this might be more similar to the superbeast. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 24, 2015 8:23:41 GMT -6
So here are my initial reactions from 2 hours of going back and forth between this and the RM1794. This is obviously only for the DA side of the unit. Now, I've only been listening to HD Tracks wavs - Gregory Porter @ 24/96, same with Steely Dan...and the Eagles @ 24/196...I haven't delved into my own recordings. But here are my thoughts. 1. Both the Svartbox (SB) and Ross Martin (RM) sound great. If I have the extra time, I'll compare to the Apollo, but there's not really any need. The RM was MUCH better than the Apollo DA - haven't compared to the SB 2. The SB seems to have a slightly more detailed top end than the RM. I don't know which one is more true...but I know that it resulted in the songs seeming more detailed (without any hint of harshness) with the SB. 3. The RM seemed a bit more forward in the low mids (200-500) to my ear. Maybe that's why it felt a little less detailed. (That's being extremely picky) 4. IMO, the SB has a wider stereo field and more depth. The RM seemed less 3 dimensional. I know these are such incredible cliches - but I swear to you, that is the best way to explain what I heard. I could hear reverb tails, movement, a phaser on the beginning of Hotel California I'd never heard before, damper pedal releases - all seemed more clear on the SB. I actually found myself going, "hmm, the predelay is pretty high on that vocal..." WTF? Maybe that's more of a glowing endorsement for these high def recordings, but hey - something has to translate it. 5. For some reason - the RM is about 3-4db louder than the SB. Don't know why...the SB is 1/4' out...the RM is xlr? 6. The Eagles are America's answer to the Beatles. I love them both. Now - I want this box to be good...but I have zero financial stake in it. If the results had been different, I probably would have just kinda gracefully bowed out of the conversation. But it's really great. Maybe I'll live with it for a while longer and hate it (doubt that)...but my initial thought is that it's even better than the already great RM box. It's great for you to do this testing for us, thanks again. Can you tell us more about how you have it set up? Are you running the system clocked from my ADC portion? What bit/samplerate settings are you using? Did you have any issues getting this set up on your system? The 1/4" I/O is balanced and differential, so it's the same type of signal that would be on an XLR connector, just in a more compact form. I scaled my I/O levels a little differently, that's why you hear a couple dB of difference, nothing to be alarmed at. I contemplated sending a unit that had both ceramic and film caps in the audio path. I sent you one with film caps even though I prefer the ceramic cap tone myself, I find it ever so slightly more sparkly. I'll get to spend more time with it this weekend and definitely next week. For this, I had them both clocked to the Burl. I'll try it with it's own clock here asap. It was simple as pie to set up - other than having to rob a few cables from other things to get the correct xlr/trs going. Once I got the 1/4 L&R going to the monitors, all I had to do was slide the SPDIF onto the back of the SB and it locked right up after pushing the encoder to get to the correct bit and sample rate. (24/48) So what does the bottom encoder do? I'm pretty slammed this weekend - so I won't be in front of it until Sunday and intermittently today and tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Apr 24, 2015 8:28:42 GMT -6
ah so you are just running your monitors off the SB 1/4 inch trs outs,
Svart, if the SB gets its clock from spdif and if the b2 is not sending spdif, what is the SB clocking to or have I misunderstood ?
Sorry if dumb question, I have never seen a back panel pick ?
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 24, 2015 8:29:58 GMT -6
It's great for you to do this testing for us, thanks again. Can you tell us more about how you have it set up? Are you running the system clocked from my ADC portion? What bit/samplerate settings are you using? Did you have any issues getting this set up on your system? The 1/4" I/O is balanced and differential, so it's the same type of signal that would be on an XLR connector, just in a more compact form. I scaled my I/O levels a little differently, that's why you hear a couple dB of difference, nothing to be alarmed at. I contemplated sending a unit that had both ceramic and film caps in the audio path. I sent you one with film caps even though I prefer the ceramic cap tone myself, I find it ever so slightly more sparkly. I'll get to spend more time with it this weekend and definitely next week. For this, I had them both clocked to the Burl. I'll try it with it's own clock here asap. It was simple as pie to set up - other than having to rob a few cables from other things to get the correct xlr/trs going. Once I got the 1/4 L&R going to the monitors, all I had to do was slide the SPDIF onto the back of the SB and it locked right up after pushing the encoder to get to the correct bit and sample rate. (24/48) So what does the bottom encoder do? I'm pretty slammed this weekend - so I won't be in front of it until Sunday and intermittently today and tomorrow. The top button sets only the ADC bit/sample rate. It doesn't do anything to the DAC side. The bottom button does nothing currently since the Wolfson SPDIF receiver chip I ended up using is set up to be completely automatic. If I had used a competitor's chip, the bottom button would be used to manually set the DAC bit/sample rates. I'm interested to get your impression when you clock the system from my ADC. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 24, 2015 8:35:43 GMT -6
ah so you are just running your monitors off the SB 1/4 inch trs outs, Svart, if the SB gets its clock from spdif and if the b2 is not sending spdif, what is the SB clocking to or have I misunderstood ? Sorry if dumb question, I have never seen a back panel pick ? SPDIF always has the clock embedded in the signal. SPDIF needs no external clock, like wordclock/superclock, and cannot use an external clock. Even attempting to do so will result in sample slippage and pops/clicks during usage. If the B2 isn't sending SPDIF, then the DAC will mute itself and nothing will happen. SPDIF receivers are ALWAYS slaves to whatever they are attached to, that's just the nature of SPDIF. I'll have some pictures soon, after I get the silkscreening stuff figured out. The back of the unit has 7 connectors: IEC power inlet SPDIF IN to DAC Left DAC output Right DAC output SPDIF OUT from ADC Left ADC input Right ADC input |
|
|
|
Post by brucerothwell on Apr 24, 2015 8:53:48 GMT -6
I'd think the 8-channel would basically be 4 of those boards in a 2U chassis.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucerothwell on Apr 24, 2015 8:56:41 GMT -6
6. The Eagles are America's answer to the Beatles. I love them both. Certainly a keen observation. ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 24, 2015 9:00:26 GMT -6
I'd think the 8-channel would basically be 4 of those boards in a 2U chassis. I'd still lay out a new board, but it would essentially be 4 pairs of DAC chips fed from an ADAT receiver via PCM. There are also 8 channel USB chips available, but I don't know anything about them yet, so I don't know if they'd be a viable option. ADAT optical is starting to disappear, but there are plenty of interfaces that still support it, so I still consider it the best option for faster development. |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Apr 24, 2015 9:00:57 GMT -6
Thx Svart.
I recall you describing the clock before and I thought with my apollo if I was using your box as front end and sending its AD to apollo on spdif, then I slave the apollo to the incoming spdif signal ?
then I can send my stereo sub mix from my daw on Apollo spdif out to the SB DAC in and monitor from your box; correct; hearing its better resolution ? basically replacing the apollo DAC with the SB DAC.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Apr 24, 2015 9:12:41 GMT -6
is anyone going to compare this to a HD-level interface like a ProTools OMNI or Symphony I/O, for example?
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 24, 2015 9:16:16 GMT -6
Thx Svart. I recall you describing the clock before and I thought with my apollo if I was using your box as front end and sending its AD to apollo on spdif, then I slave the apollo to the incoming spdif signal ? then I can send my stereo sub mix from my daw on Apollo spdif out to the SB DAC in and monitor from your box; correct; hearing its better resolution ? basically replacing the apollo DAC with the SB DAC. Yes, you are correct on both. ADC(SPDIF master)--->Apollo(SPDIF slave)--->DAC(SPDIF slave) |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 24, 2015 9:17:45 GMT -6
is anyone going to compare this to a HD-level interface like a ProTools OMNI or Symphony I/O, for example? I don't know if anyone is willing, but if they are, I can arrange having the prototype sent to them for some testing. |
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Apr 24, 2015 9:20:40 GMT -6
I'll be back from my honeymoon next wednesday. currently in cancun. I have a symphony I/O :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 24, 2015 9:28:01 GMT -6
is anyone going to compare this to a HD-level interface like a ProTools OMNI or Symphony I/O, for example? I don't know if anyone is willing, but if they are, I can arrange having the prototype sent to them for some testing. chuck has the symphony in 8x8 i believe, I think JK had a symphony also, i'd like to know the results of this? I liked my BLA FM002 over the symphony by a good margin, dandeurlou likes his RM superbeast over his BLA sig 002(- the FM clock), it'd be interesting to hear as many comparisons as possible Chuck Dan get really fantastic results from all i've heard from them. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Apr 24, 2015 9:41:38 GMT -6
I don't know if anyone is willing, but if they are, I can arrange having the prototype sent to them for some testing. chuck has the symphony in 8x8 i believe, I think JK had a symphony also, i'd like to know the results of this? I liked my BLA FM002 over the symphony by a good margin, dandeurlou likes his RM superbeast over his BLA sig 002(- the FM clock), it'd be interesting to hear as many comparisons as possible Chuck Dan get really fantastic results from all i've heard from them. Where can we hear some of Dan's stuff? dandeurloo? |
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on Apr 24, 2015 9:52:20 GMT -6
Im glad I signed up for the initial batch.
|
|
