|
|
Post by solidstate on Mar 25, 2013 21:19:51 GMT -5
Somebody needs to stop being such a sourpuss... and do their homework ;D Actually, the UMC-200 DOES have a digitally controlled analog ladder network volume control... Which means that you DON'T lose resolution when you turn the volume down. (It also means that, if you use the Direct input setting, and have an analog input signal, your signal isn't even digitized.) But.... thanks for the great explanation about why you really need a 32 bit DAC IF you're going to use a digital volume control.  I'm curious what you think of the opinions on this thread at DIYaudio.com www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=262&sid=c8798adf8b478d41320ab6a02ac23e16 |
|
|
|
Post by solidstate on Mar 27, 2013 14:24:09 GMT -5
It uses the CS42518 driven by the CS495314 which is driven by the CS497024. The output of the CS42518 goes to 5532 I/V which then goes to the NJW1298 analog volume control for the main zone. The secondary zones and level shifters use other analog volume controls. I hope this helps.  Lonnie You guys changed the volume from that Renesas M61532FP and the TiI072C op amp as well. That 5532 is great for unity gain operation (internal compensation) to your NJW1298. Did you guys notice any change in SQ as that's a better op amp for sure. Not sure about the volume from Japan Radio Company but I also think it's an upgrade from the UMC-1 volume. It sure looks like a great unit and the HDMI switching must be just excellent. |
|
|
|
Post by duskdrums on Jun 9, 2013 10:56:48 GMT -5
Sorry to revive an old thread, but I had a quick question. I mostly use an HTPC for audio and digital video. In the HTPC, I have an Asus Essence STX (PCM1792A DAC, though I realize thats hardly all that matters). For multi-channel, I use the intel integrated graphics-based HDMI connection. But when listening to two channel (no sub), what is the best way to hook up the UMC-200? Options are: (1) Same HDMI connection, using the UMC-200 DACs, in direct mode out to a McIntosh C22 Tube pre-amp and MC240 Tube amp to my speakers, (2) The STX's SPDIF connection to the UMC-200, using the emotiva to do the DA conversion, etc, (3) The STX's DAC, connected via RCA to the UMC-200 in direct, bypassing the DA, staying in the analog channel to the C22 tube pre-amp (connected this way because it unfortunately doesn't have an HT bypass as its from 1961), to the MC240.
I'm guessing I'm best off with option (3) since it does the DA at the STX and then sticks with an all analog path at the UMC before going to the C22, but if the DAC et al in the UMC are better, maybe its better with options (2) or (3)?
Thanks for the help!
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jun 9, 2013 11:55:16 GMT -5
Hmmm for two channels. I have the asus xonar essence st and I noticed a subtle difference in sound in the transport vs the USB connection for my xda-1. The Essence st has a jitter reduction clock (which the stx does not have). I would experiment with both options. Also I found the essence st's analog output to have nearly the same quality as my XDA-1 dac with some really subtle differences. So you might want to try the analog outputs on your stx into the UMC-200 and see which you prefer (the umc dac or the essence dac). Try it with the volume control on the UMC-200 and then with the volume control on the essence st to see which one is different. I believe this will make you audition the pure passthrough mode versus the umc being in the loop.
|
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Jun 9, 2013 12:01:23 GMT -5
2Channon Lonnie is Emotiva's "Mr. Wizard" and its technical leader. Lonnie can squeeze more performance out of a component than Merlin could do with one of his potions.  Two different components can use the same DAC chip set and sound very different. Implementation circuitry has a huge impact on the final performance results; and, this is where Lonnie is a genius. He can squeeze more sonic performance from an audio component than should be legal.  You will find that Lonnie will take the time to discuss any questions you may have and that he will always give you a straight answer, even if it results in him recommending a less expensive piece of gear. He has even been known to recommend a competitors product. Lonnie's genius is why Emotiva audio products have such stupendous sonic performance. Emotiva - Sonic Bliss! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2013 12:37:40 GMT -5
Hemster wrote: "I was listening to some tunes and suddenly pressed mute and exclaimed "Oh, how I wish I had a Kingwa!"
I did almost the same thing. Except I exclaimed "I coulda had a V8!" My wife responded by going out to the garage and yanking the 440 outta my Charger and depositing it on the coffee table. Ya gotta love a gal who knows her way around a motah!!
-RW-
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jun 9, 2013 17:40:15 GMT -5
My guess would be (1), HDMI, because the UMC-200 uses better components (a better power supply, better gain output stage, better galvanic isolation and shielding, better implementation of the DAC chip, etcetera and so on...), as well as because there will likely be less transport jitter thanks to ACR ( Audio Clock Regeneration, which was made possible through the introduction of HDMI version 1.3a). Sorry to revive an old thread, but I had a quick question. I mostly use an HTPC for audio and digital video. In the HTPC, I have an Asus Essence STX (PCM1792A DAC, though I realize thats hardly all that matters). For multi-channel, I use the intel integrated graphics-based HDMI connection. But when listening to two channel (no sub), what is the best way to hook up the UMC-200? Options are: (1) Same HDMI connection, using the UMC-200 DACs, in direct mode out to a McIntosh C22 Tube pre-amp and MC240 Tube amp to my speakers, (2) The STX's SPDIF connection to the UMC-200, using the emotiva to do the DA conversion, etc, (3) The STX's DAC, connected via RCA to the UMC-200 in direct, bypassing the DA, staying in the analog channel to the C22 tube pre-amp (connected this way because it unfortunately doesn't have an HT bypass as its from 1961), to the MC240. I'm guessing I'm best off with option (3) since it does the DA at the STX and then sticks with an all analog path at the UMC before going to the C22, but if the DAC et al in the UMC are better, maybe its better with options (2) or (3)? Thanks for the help! |
|
|
|
Post by srrndhound on Jun 10, 2013 17:50:25 GMT -5
The output of the CS42518 goes to 5532 I/V ... That 5532 is great for unity gain operation (internal compensation) to your NJW1298. Just FYI, Lonnie corrected that info. The I/V is TL082. See post |
|
|
|
Post by solidstate on Jun 23, 2013 15:31:29 GMT -5
Hmmm for two channels. I have the asus xonar essence st and I noticed a subtle difference in sound in the transport vs the USB connection for my xda-1. The Essence st has a jitter reduction clock (which the stx does not have). I would experiment with both options. Also I found the essence st's analog output to have nearly the same quality as my XDA-1 dac with some really subtle differences. So you might want to try the analog outputs on your stx into the UMC-200 and see which you prefer (the umc dac or the essence dac). Try it with the volume control on the UMC-200 and then with the volume control on the essence st to see which one is different. I believe this will make you audition the pure passthrough mode versus the umc being in the loop. That's what I use for my own personal rig. I don't have a pre/pro/AVR and do everything on a PC in software. It's a real shame the Dirac software is so bloody expensive as I'd use it on my PC if it wasn't over a grand. You should take a look at some decent opamps for it. I use 4 x AD797 on SOIC8 single to dip8 dual adapters for the I/V and I use another TO-99 single to DIP8 dual adapter for the buffer with 2 x LME49710HA. The TO-99 metal can packages always have better performance. |
|
|
|
Post by solidstate on Jun 23, 2013 17:23:17 GMT -5
Sorry to revive an old thread, but I had a quick question. I mostly use an HTPC for audio and digital video. In the HTPC, I have an Asus Essence STX (PCM1792A DAC, though I realize thats hardly all that matters). For multi-channel, I use the intel integrated graphics-based HDMI connection. But when listening to two channel (no sub), what is the best way to hook up the UMC-200? Options are: (1) Same HDMI connection, using the UMC-200 DACs, in direct mode out to a McIntosh C22 Tube pre-amp and MC240 Tube amp to my speakers, (2) The STX's SPDIF connection to the UMC-200, using the emotiva to do the DA conversion, etc, (3) The STX's DAC, connected via RCA to the UMC-200 in direct, bypassing the DA, staying in the analog channel to the C22 tube pre-amp (connected this way because it unfortunately doesn't have an HT bypass as its from 1961), to the MC240. I'm guessing I'm best off with option (3) since it does the DA at the STX and then sticks with an all analog path at the UMC before going to the C22, but if the DAC et al in the UMC are better, maybe its better with options (2) or (3)? Thanks for the help! No offense to tube or turntable uhh... believers... GIGGLE You should compare that McIntosh "stuff" to a couple of XPA-100s and a USP-1. I think you might be... SHOCKED LOL Or better yet sell off that McIntosh MC240 to some bonehead for $3k if it's in good enough shape and score a stack of XPA-1Ls or a XPR-5 for that UMC-200 until XMC-1 ships. BTW a stack of XPA-1Ls would destroy that silly vintage MC240 in absolutely every metric. If you like that valve EQ/tube sound then use iZotope Ozone as a VST or winamp plug in your player software. I've been using it for years for vintage recordings. Another great choice is Stereo Tool as OzoneMP doesn't work properly with newer OSs. It's a real shame Emo didn't use Analog Devices SHARC or blackfin DSPs for XMC-1 because iZotope has embedded support on those DSPs and I think a seat is less than ten bucks or there about. IMHO Analog Devices DSP dev platform and support is second to none not to mention the HUGE support community. In terms of software dev PITA Boz=CL (nightmare) Dirac=AD (JOY!) In terms of dev IDE... At least the XMC-1 isn't going to be CirrusLogic based.  This Dirac revelation IMHO is the best thing I've heard regarding the XMC-1 since it's initial release PR info. |
|
antoninus9
Minor Hero
She's the combination called the Wabash Cannonball
Posts: 35 
|
Post by antoninus9 on Jan 4, 2014 7:15:04 GMT -5
Sure, it COULD be done, but it wouldn't make as much sense as you think..... 1) I2S is VERY fussy about cabling and lead length - adding twelve or eighteen inches of ribbon cable in between might ruin the performance altogether. 2) With multiple DAC units, you have to worry about channel matching (phase, delay, etc) between units - unless you have a single 8-channel unit. I haven't seen very many good audiophile quality 8 channel I2S input DACs lately. 3) A significant portion of what you listen to in surround sound is quite heavily processed - and very little of it is "worthy" of obsessing over minutae of sound quality. You'll be lucky to find a stereo audiophile recording that hasn't passed through at least fifty fifty-cent op amps on its way to the console. My guess is that you won't find ANY surround sound ones. You're much better spending your money on a good analog preamp with HT bypass and going that route. Trust us to make a good choice for what DACs and op-amps to use. 4) The difference in how "DACs" sound is mostly due to ancillary circuitry anyway - and very little of it is due to the DAC chips themselves. Therefore, while this would be cool for DIY types, it isn't going to be of much use to very many people. Also, you can forget about re-clocking and such things - since the delay they introduce would mess up the audio/video synch. 5) A "good" op amp should have no sound whatsoever (in the application for which it is chosen). It's sort of like spark plugs - if they work oddly, then there's a problem; if they work right, you shouldn't notice them. From what I've heard, SOME of the discrete versions are quite good, while some are actually rather bad. From an engineering point of view, if the op-amp changes the sound, then there's something wrong - either with the op-amp or your circuit. (Not to mention the fact that the added contact resistance and capacitance of the socket you would need to include so you could swap the op-amp will ALSO make changes for the worse.) The short answer is that we don't have enough customers who want a "modular pre/pro". If we wanted to sell them, we would have to spread the development costs to do so amongst the actual number of customers who bought them, and the end result would be a VERY expensive product - too expensive for anybody to buy. Julian Hirsch is smiling down from audio heaven upon you. It's awesome to see a real engineer clear the room of mystical "audio alchemy" using cold hard logic and facts.  |
|
|
|
Post by teknofossil on Mar 30, 2017 11:11:37 GMT -5
Show off Interesting... My example of a UMC-200 uses a 6 channel M62446AFP volume control IC. Beats me how they get 7.1 surround out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Mar 30, 2017 12:37:01 GMT -5
Qinghua (“Kingwa”) units could be found in some of the esoteric gear such as WFS, Audio-GD, PSAudio etc.. but they're hardly affordable gear for most people. True story below: Ok, just for kicks, I was listening to some tunes and suddenly pressed mute and exclaimed "Oh, how I wish I had a Kingwa!" to which my wife said "I can make you some Quinoa if you'd like!" ;D ;D Depends on what is considered affordable. I find Audio-gd units to be affordable depending on what you are looking for. Their NFB balanced DAC with CAST architecture is less than a grand. The C-12 (single ended) can be had for $350. But their really good stuff is probably between a 1-2.5k. |
|
hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,951
|
Post by hemster on Mar 30, 2017 12:43:49 GMT -5
Qinghua (“Kingwa”) units could be found in some of the esoteric gear such as WFS, Audio-GD, PSAudio etc.. but they're hardly affordable gear for most people. True story below: Ok, just for kicks, I was listening to some tunes and suddenly pressed mute and exclaimed "Oh, how I wish I had a Kingwa!" to which my wife said "I can make you some Quinoa if you'd like!" ;D ;D Depends on what is considered affordable. I find Audio-gd units to be affordable depending on what you are looking for. Their NFB balanced DAC with CAST architecture is less than a grand. The C-12 (single ended) can be had for $350. But their really good stuff is probably between a 1-2.5k. Affordability is a relative concept. I know some rich people who won't spend more than a low-end receiver. OTOH, some regular Joes may save up for something that's a stretch for their budget (myself included). |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Mar 30, 2017 12:56:00 GMT -5
Depends on what is considered affordable. I find Audio-gd units to be affordable depending on what you are looking for. Their NFB balanced DAC with CAST architecture is less than a grand. The C-12 (single ended) can be had for $350. But their really good stuff is probably between a 1-2.5k. Affordability is a relative concept. I know some rich people who won't spend more than a low-end receiver. OTOH, some regular Joes may save up for something that's a stretch for their budget (myself included). I agree. In my case affordable is for more people like us that want some fidelity. So it's going to be more than a box at a department store. But something that somebody could realistically buy if they want. IMO anything up to 2500 is "affordable" because if somebody wanted it, they could eventually get it even if they would have to save some. $3000 is sort of at the tail end of this. But a set of 15k speakers quickly becomes unattainable for regular people like audio. The sweet spot for affordable though is between $600 and a $1000 imo. |
|
Two different components can use the same DAC chip set and sound very different. Implementation circuitry has a huge impact on the final performance results; and, this is where Lonnie is a genius. He can squeeze more sonic performance from an audio component than should be legal. 
You will find that Lonnie will take the time to discuss any questions you may have and that he will always give you a straight answer, even if it results in him recommending a less expensive piece of gear. He has even been known to recommend a competitors product. Lonnie's genius is why Emotiva audio products have such stupendous sonic performance. Emotiva - Sonic Bliss!
