|
Post by dwaleke on Jan 7, 2017 22:01:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lesliew on Jan 7, 2017 22:05:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by solidstate on Jan 7, 2017 23:23:23 GMT -5
I will take some education from Dan. Especially that chip that has had its NDA removed. I can announce that they are the Analog Devices Griffin Lite Processors and we are the only company to have them currently. Thanks Emotiva/Jade for having the balls to ditch most of the BS legacy analog input sections unlike most gear today! It's just insane to see a bank of line level, S video and component on AVRs today. You know back in the UMC-1 Cirrus Logic circus days with the crap firmware/roomcorrection I was ranting at you guys to go Analog Devices Inc! Then you go TI... then FINALLY Analog Devices. PS no more devs pulling their hair out!
|
|
|
Post by solidstate on Jan 7, 2017 23:29:56 GMT -5
hey... I take it XMC-2 is going to be SHARC based as well right?
|
|
|
Post by solidstate on Jan 7, 2017 23:33:15 GMT -5
hey... what do we know about the analog section post AKxxxx? Discrete or OPAMP? What can you tell us about the I/V and line-drive Emo/Jade?
|
|
|
Post by solidstate on Jan 7, 2017 23:42:29 GMT -5
hey... what can you tell us about those three expansions slot in terms of the buses they are connected to? Are they audio only tied to the DSP engine or could they offer a TMDS bus back into the HDMI chipset? That would be friggin amazing as you could have say a module that's an ARM SBC with say... Google TV on it! You could have that SBC control the RMC-1 via I2C or perhaps CEC.
Hey I'd also consider a upnp dlna, Airplay etc endpoint/render daemon in your AD Linux eh!
Not necessary if your expansion slot could handle an ARM SBC and if it's TMDS is tied back into the HDMI chipset and you could even put a VIDEO render endpoint sorta like how a Chromecast etc works.
I don't know of a single AVR or separates processor that can act as a VIDEO endpoint! Audio sure... video nay
PS Google's Android TV has an API for communicating with a TV or AVR microcontroller eh!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 8, 2017 15:20:56 GMT -5
hey...
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Jan 8, 2017 15:55:13 GMT -5
So several of us have wondered why the AK4490 instead of the "better" more modern AK4497. Here's one possible reason. If you take a look at the AKM Web Page covering these DACs, you'll note that there are two versions of the AK4490, the AK4490EQ and the AK4490EN. The AK4490EN in a downsized, lower power (100mW) version of the AK4490EQ (145mW). Although that adds up to less than a watt ... In any case, the newer AK4497 is only available in the AK4497EQ (346mW) package which would be just shy of 4W over the use of the AK4490EN ... Casey
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Jan 8, 2017 16:00:47 GMT -5
Nick already gave the reason. "No difference in perceived sound quality". So why spend the extra dollars; better to spend it someplace else.
Russ
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 8, 2017 16:10:48 GMT -5
Nick already gave the reason. "No difference in perceived sound quality". So why spend the extra dollars; better to spend it someplace else. Russ I missed that. Where did he say that? Nick = hairnick?
|
|
|
Post by dwaleke on Jan 8, 2017 16:20:04 GMT -5
Nick already gave the reason. "No difference in perceived sound quality". So why spend the extra dollars; better to spend it someplace else. Hurry up and tell AK to stop production of the AK4497. That's a TON of money to waste on something that has no perceived sound quality difference to a lower priced and easier to produce AK4490 chip. At least for AK the 4497 measures better so they will still sell some.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 8, 2017 16:26:46 GMT -5
Nick already gave the reason. "No difference in perceived sound quality". So why spend the extra dollars; better to spend it someplace else. Hurry up and tell AK to stop production of the AK4497. That's a TON of money to waste on something that has no perceived sound quality difference to a lower priced and easier to produce AK4490 chip. At least for AK the 4497 measures better so they will still sell some. But if every new chip is an incremental improvement...why stop? Is it the power consumption? Is the 4497 that much more expensive? You could argue that the perceived sound quality isn't audible between this chips and others, I would guess? Just curious why you seem to feel so strongly.
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 8, 2017 16:31:43 GMT -5
Hey diddle diddle, The Cat and the Fiddle, The Cow jump'd over the Moon, The little dog laugh'd to see such Craft, And the Dish ran away with the Spoon.
|
|
|
Post by dwaleke on Jan 8, 2017 16:36:03 GMT -5
I was being sarcastic.
Of course development needs to continue. If you ask analog guys there's not a single delta sigma dac that can compare to a decades old multibit dac.
I'm ok with the 4490. But I'm not naive enough to think there won't (or are not already) better products available.
Now if Emotiva can't or won't design a circuit and choose parts that will exploit the 4497 that's fine. Just say so instead of there's no perceivable sound quality difference. This is the price point we have chosen and these are the parts that fit that price point.
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Jan 8, 2017 17:05:11 GMT -5
So you're a mind reader??
Russ
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 8, 2017 17:05:46 GMT -5
I do wonder about power consumption of the 4497 though.
345mw * 16 channels adds up. Especially comparing to say, a 100mw chip. 5.5W vs 1.6W perhaps?
But who knows. I'm totally spitballing.
|
|
|
Post by dwaleke on Jan 8, 2017 17:17:05 GMT -5
It's engineering. There are probably many contributing factors that go into this choice. I doubt price is the only one.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,776
|
Post by klinemj on Jan 8, 2017 17:30:46 GMT -5
Hey, hey, my, my...rock and roll will never die...hey..
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 8, 2017 17:40:11 GMT -5
Hey, hey, my, my...rock and roll will never die...hey.. hey...Jude....
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Jan 8, 2017 17:41:52 GMT -5
Nick already gave the reason. "No difference in perceived sound quality". So why spend the extra dollars; better to spend it someplace else. Russ I missed that. Where did he say that? Nick = hairnick? Yes.
|
|