Lsc
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 10, 2020 0:26:39 GMT -5
Yeah. According to their chart, the "SINAD" score for the Bluesounds are at least 10 db worse than our Emotiva products. I was just playing Dire Straights Super Audio CD(DSD) and I gotta say, the resolution is pretty darn good. Unfortunately, this is my only SACD. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 10, 2020 0:32:28 GMT -5
Thank you! This is very helpful. Wow, I was hoping to not buy a DAC. My buddy has a $4000 DAC that’s noticeably better than a DAC from a blue sound streamer. It really made a difference but I’m hoping the XMC2 with Dirac can be my 2 channel solution. I thought these Emotiva processors are as good as standalone DACs. I guess I shouldn’t expect a $3000 processor with everything going on to equal a $2000-$4000 DAC. Probably asking for too much 😊. That's not "one company", that is one persons own Web site with questionable testing and no listening tests.. If you want to compare, see if you can borrow the DAC and do some listening tests between the 2, the one that sounds better to you is the one that is better for you. Then we can start up an other argument on defining the word 'better' in regards to hifi listening ;-) I guess it all depends on who is listening but it was pretty obvious that my buddy's Denafrips Terminator DAC was vastly superior to the Bluesound DAC. It just got me thinking...I don't want to buy a DAC, it's one of the main reasons why I like the Emotiva processors. Hifi listening is what I experienced - I can't get to that level but I'd like to be close. |
|
|
|
Post by markc on May 10, 2020 7:34:43 GMT -5
I was just playing Dire Straights Super Audio CD(DSD) and I gotta say, the resolution is pretty darn good. Unfortunately, this is my only SACD. I have the SACD and the DVDA of Brothers In Arms and I can guarantee you that the stereo version should sound better in 24/48 from the DVDA than the DSD SACD version as it is the closest to the original "as recorded" data. This is because, as much touted at the time, Money For Nothing was one of the first, and certainly the first ever popular, released albums that was Recorded, "Mixed" and released digitally (DDD branding on the CD) However, as it was 1985, Digital recording was limited and limiting compared to todays acceptability. It was recorded on two 16 bit, 24 track Sony DASH 3324 recorders, probably at 48Khz Technically for the mixing they had to use analogue outs to an analogue mixer but straight back to 16/48 Masters Thus, the resolution and clarity of the original stereo masters cannot ever exceed 16 bit 48kHz (Which is presented as lossless at 24/48 on the DVDA and not quite so accurately in DSD) The superiority of the PCM on the DVDA over DSD is even probably true for the multichannel version of the album as it it has been reliably documented that the SACD DSD for Brothers In Arms was simply derived from the multichannel PCM mix. The multichannel mix is justifiably in 24/96 on the DVDA as the mix was created from the original multitracks, and not the original final master. These multitracks would still have been 16/48 originals but when the multichannel mix was done in 2005, these were losslessly up-sampled to "just" 24/96 for equalising and multichannel mixing. The re-mixing would have benefitted from up-sampling to minimise data loss/distortion. (In 2020 as high as 32/384 would be possible on even a standard desktop PC) These were then output as the 24/96 PCM that is on the DVDA and also simultaneously output to a Sonoma DSD recorder. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 10, 2020 14:01:23 GMT -5
I was just playing Dire Straights Super Audio CD(DSD) and I gotta say, the resolution is pretty darn good. Unfortunately, this is my only SACD. I have the SACD and the DVDA of Brothers In Arms and I can guarantee you that the stereo version should sound better in 24/48 from the DVDA than the DSD SACD version as it is the closest to the original "as recorded" data. This is because, as much touted at the time, Money For Nothing was one of the first, and certainly the first ever popular, released albums that was Recorded, "Mixed" and released digitally (DDD branding on the CD) However, as it was 1985, Digital recording was limited and limiting compared to todays acceptability. It was recorded on two 16 bit, 24 track Sony DASH 3324 recorders, probably at 48Khz Technically for the mixing they had to use analogue outs to an analogue mixer but straight back to 16/48 Masters Thus, the resolution and clarity of the original stereo masters cannot ever exceed 16 bit 48kHz (Which is presented as lossless at 24/48 on the DVDA and not quite so accurately in DSD) The superiority of the PCM on the DVDA over DSD is even probably true for the multichannel version of the album as it it has been reliably documented that the SACD DSD for Brothers In Arms was simply derived from the multichannel PCM mix. The multichannel mix is justifiably in 24/96 on the DVDA as the mix was created from the original multitracks, and not the original final master. These multitracks would still have been 16/48 originals but when the multichannel mix was done in 2005, these were losslessly up-sampled to "just" 24/96 for equalising and multichannel mixing. The re-mixing would have benefitted from up-sampling to minimise data loss/distortion. (In 2020 as high as 32/384 would be possible on even a standard desktop PC) These were then output as the 24/96 PCM that is on the DVDA and also simultaneously output to a Sonoma DSD recorder. I don’t doubt you. I was just saying that the SACD sounds really good. Much better than my usual streaming from tidal. I also downloaded some sample songs from HD tracks and they also sounded superior. Point being I may need to pursue superior recording vs superior decoding. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on May 10, 2020 14:35:44 GMT -5
I have the SACD and the DVDA of Brothers In Arms and I can guarantee you that the stereo version should sound better in 24/48 from the DVDA than the DSD SACD version as it is the closest to the original "as recorded" data. This is because, as much touted at the time, Money For Nothing was one of the first, and certainly the first ever popular, released albums that was Recorded, "Mixed" and released digitally (DDD branding on the CD) However, as it was 1985, Digital recording was limited and limiting compared to todays acceptability. It was recorded on two 16 bit, 24 track Sony DASH 3324 recorders, probably at 48Khz Technically for the mixing they had to use analogue outs to an analogue mixer but straight back to 16/48 Masters Thus, the resolution and clarity of the original stereo masters cannot ever exceed 16 bit 48kHz (Which is presented as lossless at 24/48 on the DVDA and not quite so accurately in DSD) The superiority of the PCM on the DVDA over DSD is even probably true for the multichannel version of the album as it it has been reliably documented that the SACD DSD for Brothers In Arms was simply derived from the multichannel PCM mix. The multichannel mix is justifiably in 24/96 on the DVDA as the mix was created from the original multitracks, and not the original final master. These multitracks would still have been 16/48 originals but when the multichannel mix was done in 2005, these were losslessly up-sampled to "just" 24/96 for equalising and multichannel mixing. The re-mixing would have benefitted from up-sampling to minimise data loss/distortion. (In 2020 as high as 32/384 would be possible on even a standard desktop PC) These were then output as the 24/96 PCM that is on the DVDA and also simultaneously output to a Sonoma DSD recorder. I don’t doubt you. I was just saying that the SACD sounds really good. Much better than my usual streaming from tidal. I also downloaded some sample songs from HD tracks and they also sounded superior. Point being I may need to pursue superior recording vs superior decoding. Exactly Lsc! And even if the original source is analog tape from 1958, there can be a huge difference in transfers and mastering, etc. Check out the Miles Davis Kind of Blue from HDTracks that was transferred from the original three-track source tapes (not the mix or master). It was then remixed and mastered all digital at 96/24. Compare it to a CD or vinyl or streaming ... huge difference. Depending on musical taste .... recordings from 2L, Channel Classics and many new recordings from NativeDSD can be excellent. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 11, 2020 11:28:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by foggy1956 on May 11, 2020 12:26:50 GMT -5
Hooked up the xmc-2 this morning, if early results mean anything I'd ride this thing out |
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on May 11, 2020 12:41:24 GMT -5
Thank you! This is very helpful. Wow, I was hoping to not buy a DAC. My buddy has a $4000 DAC that’s noticeably better than a DAC from a blue sound streamer. It really made a difference but I’m hoping the XMC2 with Dirac can be my 2 channel solution. I thought these Emotiva processors are as good as standalone DACs. I guess I shouldn’t expect a $3000 processor with everything going on to equal a $2000-$4000 DAC. Probably asking for too much 😊. That's not "one company", that is one persons own Web site with questionable testing and no listening tests.. If you want to compare, see if you can borrow the DAC and do some listening tests between the 2, the one that sounds better to you is the one that is better for you. Then we can start up an other argument on defining the word 'better' in regards to hifi listening ;-) While I don't agree that there's anything questionable about ASR's testing methodology, I do agree with this recommendation. If at all possible, borrow the DAC and see if it makes a difference. I recently retired my outboard DAC because I was entering the realm of seriously diminishing (maybe even imaginary) returns. It wasn't worth the added complexity in my system. Now, my DAC wasn't a $4k unit, but it was still pretty nice, and made a significant difference when connected to any receiver I've owned in the past. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 11, 2020 12:53:32 GMT -5
Hooked up the xmc-2 this morning, if early results mean anything I'd ride this thing out I have been very impressed with the sound quality of the XMC2. The patience thing has been the issue but I agree, I’ll continue with this processor because I don’t think I can get anything that’ll sound as good unless I spend a lot more money and I do see their commitment during the last few months with addressing issues, user experience and performance. My biggest question is that is the XMC2 the processor you want to stick with for the next 5 years+. I think the answer is yes. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 11, 2020 14:30:11 GMT -5
Just tried to test some DSD files. With my Sony X800 4K Blu-ray player, the XMC2 will only play in DSD mode with DSD64 2.0 files. With DSD128 and up its in PCM 2.0.
Seems like a limitation of the Sony or the DACs in the XMC2.
For the record the DSD64 sounds outstanding.
Also when i play a DSD 5.1 song there is a loud pop when it’s switching modes. I’ll add this to the beta firmware thread and I’m running the lastest beta firmware.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on May 11, 2020 14:35:25 GMT -5
A month or two ago megash0n reported a problem with lack of dynamic on the center channel when watching certain movies. Specifically, the movie he noticed this on was Midway. I didn't have Midway, but I tried a few other movies and didn't experience the issue at the time. Over the weekend, however, I rewatched the Dark Knight trilogy, and sure enough, sure enough, I experienced the problem. At first I was puzzled by the fact that things seemed muffled, and I know for a fact that Dark Knight has an excellent sound track. Bass was as powerful as ever, but dialog and other effects were getting lost. What's interesting about Dark Knight vs. Midway, is that Dark Knight is a DTS soundtrack. Specifically, DTS-HD MA 5.1. Midway, on the other hand, is a Dolby soundtrack. Furthermore, I found that the issue when away when I turned off the DTS Neural:X upmixer. I can't say this is the same issue, but the effect was definitely the same. Interestingly enough, I have not height or width speakers, so I'm not sure what Neural:X was doing. I guess expanding 5.1 to 7.1 for my theater, but that still doesn't explain why it specifically crippled my center channel. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on May 11, 2020 16:21:45 GMT -5
Just tried to test some DSD files. With my Sony X800 4K Blu-ray player, the XMC2 will only play in DSD mode with DSD64 2.0 files. With DSD128 and up its in PCM 2.0. Seems like a limitation of the Sony or the DACs in the XMC2. For the record the DSD64 sounds outstanding. Also when i play a DSD 5.0 song there is a loud pop when it’s switching modes. I’ll add this to the beta firmware thread and I’m running the lastest beta firmware. Lsc did you play DSD 5.0 over HDMI? I would not expect it to work any other way (i.e. USB DAC). Have you tried multichannel (DSD or PCM) with the upmixers? I have tried HDMI and ethernet through OPPO 205 and I don't hear 5.1 upmixed to my 7.1.4 channels. Upmixers work on video source, and on 2 channel audio, but not multichannel audio. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 11, 2020 16:25:00 GMT -5
Just tried to test some DSD files. With my Sony X800 4K Blu-ray player, the XMC2 will only play in DSD mode with DSD64 2.0 files. With DSD128 and up its in PCM 2.0. Seems like a limitation of the Sony or the DACs in the XMC2. For the record the DSD64 sounds outstanding. Also when i play a DSD 5.0 song there is a loud pop when it’s switching modes. I’ll add this to the beta firmware thread and I’m running the lastest beta firmware. Lsc did you play DSD 5.0 over HDMI? I would not expect it to work any other way (i.e. USB DAC). Have you tried multichannel (DSD or PCM) with the upmixers? I have tried HDMI and ethernet through OPPO 205 and I don't hear 5.1 upmixed to my 7.1.4 channels. Upmixers work on video source, and on 2 channel audio, but not multichannel audio. Yes I am using HDMI. I don’t want it to up mix. I’m trying to have DSD128+ to play in the native DSD format. |
|
|
|
Post by hytram on May 11, 2020 18:27:33 GMT -5
I have been experimenting with SACD for the first time via my HTPC and HDMI..
WOW. Really amazed by the sound I am getting, sadly I am going to have to match my centre and rears now..
Really highlights the importance of playing quality source material.
The XMC-2 is really up there with the sound quality especially in the 2ch arena and I think I have finally got one system that will make me happy with both music and HT for sound (still a little bit of compromising in both directions)
Now, if I could just solve the 'please wait' and sound cutting out when I change TV channels issues I might keep the bloody thing 😉
If you what to hear what remastering old stuff can do, have a listen to the remastered Beatles stuff on Spotify/Tidal.. Gave me chills. (have to find the 96/24 versions of them)
|
|
|
|
Post by hytram on May 11, 2020 18:35:07 GMT -5
Oh to add..
I bought a chromecast audio just to get me by until I rebuilt the HTPC and am astonished with what I can get out of it via Spotify.. Yes there is better, but as it's my benchmark now, I compare everything else to it, Sara K stuff is blowing my mind.
I have a harshness problem in my room and the chromecast audio has been the most layback source I have used, I know there is better and will keep going back to it as benchmark.
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 11, 2020 22:14:18 GMT -5
I have been experimenting with SACD for the first time via my HTPC and HDMI.. WOW. Really amazed by the sound I am getting, sadly I am going to have to match my centre and rears now.. Really highlights the importance of playing quality source material. The XMC-2 is really up there with the sound quality especially in the 2ch arena and I think I have finally got one system that will make me happy with both music and HT for sound (still a little bit of compromising in both directions) Now, if I could just solve the 'please wait' and sound cutting out when I change TV channels issues I might keep the bloody thing 😉 If you what to hear what remastering old stuff can do, have a listen to the remastered Beatles stuff on Spotify/Tidal.. Gave me chills. (have to find the 96/24 versions of them) It really does sound excellent. I downloaded some free dsd files - caution on the loud pops! What firmware are you on I’m on 1.9.x beta and I haven’t seen the please wait in a while. It’s quick now. |
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on May 12, 2020 1:46:54 GMT -5
What firmware are you on I’m on 1.9.x beta and I haven’t seen the please wait in a while. It’s quick now. Oh wow...that’s a compelling argument for the beta. Any downside? |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 12, 2020 2:32:28 GMT -5
What firmware are you on I’m on 1.9.x beta and I haven’t seen the please wait in a while. It’s quick now. Oh wow...that’s a compelling argument for the beta. Any downside? There is always a risk with beta but it’s a whole lotta upside with very little downside. The Emotiva team is hard at work to make these processors stable and perform well. I have no issues with the performance of my XMC2. My thorn is the one that all of us share - Dirac. |
|
|
|
Post by hytram on May 12, 2020 3:51:17 GMT -5
What firmware are you on I’m on 1.9.x beta and I haven’t seen the please wait in a while. It’s quick now. Just the bog standard 1.9 Where does one get this amazing elixir of beta goodness? |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on May 12, 2020 7:46:03 GMT -5
What firmware are you on I’m on 1.9.x beta and I haven’t seen the please wait in a while. It’s quick now. Just the bog standard 1.9 Where does one get this amazing elixir of beta goodness? You have to message Hair Nick and ask if you can join the beta team. See if there are any spots left. |
|
