Didn't say that exactly. IME its better not use ASRC unless its needed. It shouldn't be needed with asynchronous USB. It isn't needed for SPDIF either if FIFO is an option, and if FIFO time delay, and or if potential buffer over/under runs are not deemed to be problems.
That said, upsampling 16/44 to DSD256 involves modifying/recalculating CD data. Doesn't necessarily mean it will sound worse.
Unless you were running the DAC with the same clock in both async and sync modes you are comparing apples to bicycles.
As an aside, in the early days of digital, pre-1983, before the release of the CD, there used to be a vinyl-digital hybrid format. Where the master recording was performed digitally, but the consumer release was a subsequent transfer to vinyl LP for home playback. This was my first experience with digital audio. I remember greatly enjoying, from an emotional listening perspective, the few such LPs I had acquired. It was just as musical sounding as my all analog LPs, but did notice greater clarity and dynamic range. As a result of that positive experience, I could barely wait for the arrival of fully digital playback via CD.
Wow, what a disappointment that turned out to be. So much so, that I was certain that my new CD player MUST have been defective. I exchanged it for a new replacement unit, but had the same highly disappointed reaction. Music playback was no longer an enjoyable experience, via my CD player. Although CD playback subjectively exhibited greater clarity, sounding very much lower in noise and distortion (which, was objectively true), and wider in frequency and dynamic range it, unfortunately, also rendered music playback as uninteresting, at best, and tiring at worst. I heard those audible parameter improvements, large as they were, yet it just didn't add up to human musical enjoyment.
It seemed that the problem must lay in my CD player's technical implementation, since I enjoyed the very same digital masters when played via vinyl. I presumed that the studio's DAC's were simply that much superior to the DAC technology within my inexpensive home CD player as the explanation, however, I then began seeing increasing frequent reports in the audiophile press of similarly disappointing subjective listening experiences via even quite costly CD players. It's long been speculated by others that this is because of signal uncorrelated groove-noise inherent to vinyl playback, significantly randomizing the quantization errors of digital. Perhaps, that's why, but whatever it was due to, I did emotionally enjoy those early digital/vinyl hybrid LPs, while I did not enjoy early CD playback released from the very same digital masters.
If digital audio is truly accurate then you should be able to record your vinyl playback and have it digitally reproduced perfectly with the exact same euphonic vinyl artifacts, right? Does the speculation about why vinyl artifacts might be the explanation hold up to scrutiny?
Not sure what you're getting at. ESS dacs use MCLK as their ASRC reference.
EDIT: If the dac can operate in fully synchronous mode okay, the switching it to ASRC mode solely via register settings doesn't change any clocking.
.... which turns to be mostly noise of different kind and nothing else, right? It is easy to record it from vinyl to ADC with >=96kHz sampling, HP cut everything below 20kHz and then slow down the rest 2x or 4x in Adobe Audition (or another audio SW) and try what is audible. Groove noise and cartridge distortion components (you may check them with the test vinyl record) which of course go behind 20kHz. But nothing useful there.
I think that the issue with digital audio has been that, while the sampling theorem is perfect, the practical implementation of digital audio devices has been less than perfect. Read as; less than adequate. For example, the mentioned domain conversion quantization-errors. Also, typical DAC image-band rejection (and likely also ADC anti-alias) filter implementations have shown themselves to be something less than perceptually transparent.
Yes, but on the cheap chinese board this would mean hacking the board. And even with boards having external MCK connectors changing the register settings does not necessarily happen on the fly which makes direct sound comparisons pointless.
One example was done with an Iancanada FIFO_Pi and Dual ES9038Q2M dac board using Ian's controller module. Clocks are located on FIFO_Pi with a short u.fl MCLK cable to the dac board.
The other was a prototype Allo Revolution commercial dac. Clocks were on the dac board.
Both dacs had user options to run fully synchronously or else in ASRC mode. No hacking was involved. Mode changing was quick enough.
The other was a prototype Allo Revolution commercial dac. Clocks were on the dac board.
Both dacs had user options to run fully synchronously or else in ASRC mode. No hacking was involved. Mode changing was quick enough.
The scientific method involves the ability to recreate the apparatus and environment used to support the conclusions drawn. This applies to both Mark4's claim and yours in stating "Both DACS have distortion levels and sound coloration below audible threshold".
If "noise" is herein defined as anything not signal the above is limited as to "distortion levels and sound coloration below audible threshold", as not necessarily encompassing all forms of noise, known or otherwise. The ability to resolve noise is conditional upon numerous factors as to include the apparatus to permit such resolution. There exists a difference between claiming artifacts are below the audible threshold and claiming artifacts are indeterminate below such threshold, as perhaps limited by the apparatus being used.
The veracity of a claim is not dependant upon the ability of a proponent to identify noise sources, known or otherwise, hence the ability to counter claims (in satisfactory English, or well articulated grunting) does not necessarily alter the veracity of the claim. Alternative, the veracity can be altered if a 1000 others either agreed or disagreed with that claim. Perhaps in time we will know this.
The claim by Markw4 does not appear being presented as a "universal truth", as being backed by anyone else (or perhaps by his dog barking once or twice) to warrant being defended in the manner you suggest. It seems that your responses to members in general is one whereupon members are been perceived as asserting "universal truth" that could warrant the kind of evidence you appear demanding. There is rarely any evidence of that.
Last edited:
It’s, perhaps, not coincidental that the top 5, of the 7 DACs which were subjectively evaluated ALL featured NOS operation. While the bottom 2 DACs both appear to feature integrated OS.
Last edited:
Yes, but the bottom 2 DACs had measurement-wise questionable transformer based output instead of the normal (and datasheet recommended) opamp IV+LPF. So this test does not provide any conclusions regarding NOS vs. OS.
Dodging my question noted. I'll take that as an answer "none" to my question.
If personal fun is the judging criteria for sound reproducing equipment, then sure.
Do they behave as brick wall low-pass filters above 15 kHz?
When I make a 96 kHz sample rate digital recording of a record and look at the GoldWave moving FFT plots, I see a gradual decrease and a level that is higher when there is some sharp sound. That is, the spectra look like high-frequency music content.
Does it occur on most records?
If they were made with 44.1 kHz or 44.056 kHz sample rate, they combine the worst of both worlds.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.