|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Nov 21, 2016 20:35:59 GMT -5
Oh, sorry! I've been in the Electronic Manufacturing business so long I've forgotten what's standard parlance. If it makes you feel any better, I had to ask people what ROTFL meant ... :-)
ROI: Return On Investment
NRE: Non-Recurring Engineering (i.e. original engineering development cost)
COGS: Cost Of Goods (i.e. the cost of all the parts)
I should have also included Recurring Engineering, Customer Support, Inventory, etc. costs but then it just gets pedantic ... :-)
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Nov 21, 2016 21:40:53 GMT -5
Lol
|
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Nov 21, 2016 23:05:49 GMT -5
I like BOM - bill of material.
Russ
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Nov 22, 2016 0:04:19 GMT -5
Yes, "BOM" is also a great one. And it's a TLA which makes it better ... :-) On another front, I finally used the InterNet Way Back Machine to verify that Emotiva was indeed offering the 40% discount deal when I bought my DMC-1 back in September 2007, so now I'll just have to figure out how that's done when the RMC-1 comes out ... Casey |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Nov 22, 2016 0:11:18 GMT -5
Yes, "BOM" is also a great one. And it's a TLA which makes it better ... :-) On another front, I finally used the InterNet Way Back Machine to verify that Emotiva was indeed offering the 40% discount deal when I bought my DMC-1 back in September 2007, so now I'll just have to figure out how that's done when the RMC-1 comes out ... Casey You will need to confirm that they have a record of the sale and that a discount card was not issued, ie; on file, or you will need to produce the card they sent you. Good luck. 🍀👍 |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Nov 22, 2016 0:47:53 GMT -5
Thanks. No card. I think they may not have been using cards way back then.
Regardless, the RMC-1 is shaping up to be an interesting processor and I think it's time to pull the trigger. No one can say that I haven't gotten good milage out of my 9-year-old DMC-1!
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 22, 2016 2:40:08 GMT -5
It supports twice as high sampling rate and have lower SNR for some applications. Although, the differences should be more or less just theoretical for the end result. The ES9018 has 2 dB more DNR than the AKM 4497. In measuring accuracy of a DAC the DNR is still going to be the most important spec. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 22, 2016 2:54:50 GMT -5
And it does DSD up to 512 without conversion. The Ess dac converts. The AKM does DSD direct without conversion. The conversion from DSD to multibit data (not to be confused with PCM data) is actually better than no conversion. This is due to the fundamental flaw inherent of 1-bit quantizers, which profoundly impacts the dither process. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 22, 2016 3:10:44 GMT -5
As for the MQA content availability "issue", the entire catalog (yeah, the whole thing) of Warner has already been converted to MQA. By next spring both Universal and Sony are going to follow so hang in there folks because you're going for a ride!  |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Nov 22, 2016 5:02:17 GMT -5
It supports twice as high sampling rate and have lower SNR for some applications. Although, the differences should be more or less just theoretical for the end result. The ES9018 has 2 dB more DNR than the AKM 4497. In measuring accuracy of a DAC the DNR is still going to be the most important spec. Not clear what you mean with more but for non DAC mono setup, AK4497 has 2 dB better DNR DNR ES9018: Mono 135 dB, 8-Ch 129 dBAK4497: 8-Ch 2.6 Vrms Output 131 dB, (ch 2.0 Vrms output 128 dB) Not that it matters much, those tiny differences are more of theoretical interest. References www.esstech.com/files/1414/4095/2154/ES9018S_PB_v1.7_140916.pdf www.akm.com/akm/en/file/datasheet/AK4497EQ.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 22, 2016 7:13:51 GMT -5
The AKM is a stereo DAC, not an 8 channel DAC. The ESS can deliver 133 dB DNR (stereo mode) and 135 dB DNR (mono mode) whereas the AKM can deliver only 131 dB DNR (stereo mode) and 133 dB DNR (mono mode). On top of that, the THD+N is -120 dB for the ESS vs. only -116 for the AKM so no, the old ESS is still the better chip according to the important specs that matter, and the reason why they matter IMO is becase we're obviously trying to discuss the performance/accuracy of a REFERENCE grade product.  |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Nov 22, 2016 8:12:34 GMT -5
The AKM is a stereo DAC, not an 8 channel DAC. The ESS can deliver 133 dB DNR (stereo mode) and 135 dB DNR (mono mode) whereas the AKM can deliver only 131 dB DNR (stereo mode) and 133 dB DNR (mono mode). On top of that, the THD+N is -120 dB for the ESS vs. only -116 for the AKM so no, the old ESS is still the better chip according to the important specs that matter, and the reason why they matter IMO is becase we're obviously trying to discuss the performance/accuracy of a REFERENCE grade product. You're right, I stand corrected. I still maintain that DNR of 135 or 131 is of theoretical interest even for a reference product. Neither would be the weak point in this application and if the differences in THD+N a can be heard at all is debatable. EDIT: If you're that focused on having the absolute highest DNR and lowest THD+N, is there any reason not using the E9038PRO instead? |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 22, 2016 8:54:41 GMT -5
The AKM is a stereo DAC, not an 8 channel DAC. The ESS can deliver 133 dB DNR (stereo mode) and 135 dB DNR (mono mode) whereas the AKM can deliver only 131 dB DNR (stereo mode) and 133 dB DNR (mono mode). On top of that, the THD+N is -120 dB for the ESS vs. only -116 for the AKM so no, the old ESS is still the better chip according to the important specs that matter, and the reason why they matter IMO is becase we're obviously trying to discuss the performance/accuracy of a REFERENCE grade product. You're right, I stand corrected. I still maintain that DNR of 135 or 131 is of theoretical interest even for a reference product. Neither would be the weak point in this application and if the differences in THD+N a can be heard at all is debatable. EDIT: If you're that focused on having the absolute highest DNR and lowest THD+N, is there any reason not using the E9038PRO instead? A few posts ago I wrote that the ES9038PRO in stereo mode (8 of these chips for a total of 16 channels) would get my vote. Then again, you are right that a 2 dB difference in DNR is not exactly going to kill it, and, as I have already been saying for years... the implementation matters a whole lot more than the chip itself, AND, if the implementation is not done completely right, then IMO the ES9018 does have a (very) strong tendency to sound artificial and etched. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Nov 22, 2016 10:44:44 GMT -5
A few posts ago I wrote that the ES9038PRO in stereo mode (8 of these chips for a total of 16 channels) would get my vote. Then again, you are right that a 2 dB difference in DNR is not exactly going to kill it, and, as I have already been saying for years... the implementation matters a whole lot more than the chip itself, AND, if the implementation is not done completely right, then IMO the ES9018 does have a (very) strong tendency to sound artificial and etched. Seems like we agree.  On the topic of ES9038PRO, I should get my upgraded Manhattan in a month or so. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Nov 22, 2016 12:27:31 GMT -5
So all of you with separate high-end DCAs, if the RMC-1 comes along with really good DACs, will you continue to run outboard DACs, or use the RMC-1's DACs? I would have thought that it would be desirable to use the RMC-1's DACs in order to have as short an Analog Signal Path as possible between the RMC-1 and the Amplifiers. Just curious as to the pros and cons.
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by rhale64 on Nov 22, 2016 12:42:29 GMT -5
I don't have a high end dac but if I did I would compare the two. If it was even really close I would sell the high end dac and put that money elsewhere into my system. But again that is just me at my older age. When I was younger I would try to keep them both.
|
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Nov 22, 2016 13:21:54 GMT -5
I use a schiit Yggrasil with my XMC-1, and they have both enriched my stereo listening options a great deal. I originally purchased the Yggy to pair with the Violectric V281 mostly for headphone listening, but the V281's versatile connectivity options enabled me to integrate both units quite seamlessly into my main 5.1/7.1 HT system driven by the XMC-1, which is already excellent for both stereo and multichannel listening. Integrating the Yggy into this system has only made possible a another fantastically rich alternative for 2-channel stereo listening through speakers. I currently use the Yggy for all CD and computer based stereo listening, and the XMC-1 takes over for most HDMI-based/SACD 2-channel and, of course, multichannel listening, but it remains extremely capable in giving the Yggy the run for its money even in computer-based 2-channel audio when that is called for, even though, when all is said and done, I consider the Yggy to be the better all-round performer in the department of 2-channel stereo. The XMC-1 is the more versatile performer of the two, and there are times and circumstances, in which the two channel stereo listening options it offers me are more useful and practical than those of the Yggy can be, without compromising the quality of 2-channel audio I get in any significant way. The main point I am making is that a great processor and a great DAC can complement each other in the same system to enrich listening options, and that the presence of one does not necessarily have to exclude the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Nov 22, 2016 13:32:40 GMT -5
So what are the essential differences between the XMC-1 and the RMC-1 going to be? Will they simply lie in the superior number of channels (on the RMC-1), or will there be more to it than that? I am asking because, given my own circumstances, I do not think I am going to need the 16-channels of the RMC-1... Even if I were to decide to go the full ATMOS/DTS-X route, the 7.2.4 array of the upgraded XMC-1 will work just fine for me, and any extra channels would appear to be superfluous at this time. So if the foreseeable qualitative/quantitative differences between the RMC-1 and the XMC-1 will lie only in the extra number of channels on the RMC-1, then I might as well stick to my XMC-1, or even consider getting a second one for another system, instead of going for an RMC-1 which may be "overkill" for my needs. Just saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Nov 22, 2016 14:01:21 GMT -5
So all of you with separate high-end DCAs, if the RMC-1 comes along with really good DACs, will you continue to run outboard DACs, or use the RMC-1's DACs? I would have thought that it would be desirable to use the RMC-1's DACs in order to have as short an Analog Signal Path as possible between the RMC-1 and the Amplifiers. Just curious as to the pros and cons. Casey If the DAC in the RMC-1 is as good or better, there's no reason to keep an external DAC unless it provides other functionality that the built-in DAC doesn't provide. Such as MQA, DSD support, better filters, more inputs, etc. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,246
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 22, 2016 14:42:05 GMT -5
So where can I PURCHASE this huge list of MQA-encoded titles? Actually, there are two separate questions here..... The first is whether all those titles have been "fully processed", or just "converted into MQA" for streaming. Are we talking about a full remastering, with the flaws of the original encoding carefully repaired? Or are we talking about being bulk processed through the CODEC, resulting in slightly smaller files, and what some people claim is "a more pleasant sound"? The second question is, quite literally, where can I PURCHASE my own copies of all that music, in MQA format, as discs or downloadable files? I keep hearing things like this, yet, when I do a web search on "MQA content", what I get back is a very short list of a few really obscure titles. Which stores have those MQA titles for sale? As I've said before, I'll be interested when there are actually new albums being produced in this format that I care about, and that sound noticeably better..... Or when some of my old favorites are remastered in it - and actually sound noticeably better than the previous version. I literally have yet to see a SINGLE MQA title that I care to own. I believe that OnkyoMusic has about two dozen actual albums - but they're all REALLY obscure. I've also heard that there are some other vendors who have a few. However..... I just went to Amazon and did a search on MQA. I found a few players that support it, and, of course, the Meridian DACs. But, when I looked for actual content to listen to, all I could find was exactly ONE album of Mozart Concertos that I could STREAM. NO CDs; NO downloads; zilch... zip... nada... As for the MQA content availability "issue", the entire catalog (yeah, the whole thing) of Warner has already been converted to MQA. By next spring both Universal and Sony are going to follow so hang in there folks because you're going for a ride! |
|
