Prince Valiant
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
- Messages
- 56
- Likes
- 66
Good to see the measurements streamlined for yet another simple DAC.
Measurements are abbreviated in order to make progress with the backlog.
This is how my system is set up. I have hard wired ethernet into a Sonos Connect and then optical out to a SMSL SU8 DAC and balanced out to a Buckeye Amp.Could something like a sonos connect benefit from a dac like this?
Thanks
Impedance matching isn't a thing in analogue audio connections.Arrived today from Amazon.it. Anyone could measure output impedance? I have connected to Topping PA-5 II and comparing it to my usual RME ADI-2 DAC FS (single ended outputs) seems heavy in the bass region. Probably brain bias or bad impedance matching?
Thanks
That response seems really too bad, maybe something gone wrong with the method, archimago got a better result. Anyway yes, Tidal didn't change the old MQA that in other services were already presented in 44.1KHz 16bit and supposedly came from redbook quality masters. Hard to say why they didn't change, maybe too much work or simply this didn't worth if related to possible objectives or subjectives differences. It also vould be interesting to compare those files to their CD counterparts for real. For sure, Tidal in past lacked about some informations, while MQA lacks all informations.Demonstrably false:
View attachment 426583 View attachment 426582
Do you mean the PCM content encoded in MQA is the same as FLAC CD quality? Then no. You will not be able to null a CD FLAC with the same audio encoded in MQA.
Or do you mean that Tidal now also offer actually lossless FLAC content?
Then yes, but they still frequently stream MQA content to end users without their knowledge.
Did you match the levels?Arrived today from Amazon.it. Anyone could measure output impedance? I have connected to Topping PA-5 II and comparing it to my usual RME ADI-2 DAC FS (single ended outputs) seems heavy in the bass region. Probably brain bias or bad impedance matching?
Thanks
Where did I request any measurements? How did I not try to ascertain correct use and proper comparison?Hi JIW
Don't take it the wrong way but as far as listening is concerned (since a DAC is used to reproduce sound as a basic function, normally), I think we should stop vehemently 'unsheathing' the transition to mandatory measurements...
Let me explain:
an 'ordinary' person, that is to say someone who is going to buy a new DAC and will compare it within the framework of these usual conditions of use and who will express a difference when listening, will not systematize (him) the need to understand why (or even how) but say what he has heard and at worst ask if this is a normal operation of the device, whether or not he likes what he has heard.
We can then 'guide' him or tell him if his new one is used correctly and explain how to do it.
The measures can come later, if he expresses the need.
Moreover, Amir is already doing it and just read his reviews![]()
Actually I've not matched the levels. Thanks for the maths, I'll try to compare both devices using the figures you have posted here. My comparison was done using RME single ended outputs at +7 dBuWhere did I request any measurements? How did I not try to ascertain correct use and proper comparison?
Likely level differences can be determined from volume settings if the device's output levels are known. The RME does not have the usual output levels and has to configured a certain way to output the usual 2 V RMS. Also, the PS200's output is 2.21 V RMS almost 1 dB above 2 V RMS. To match that, the RME has to be set to +13 dBu output level or AutoRef with volume set to -4 dB or -4 dBr. For the PS200 output is 20*log10((2.211+2.208)/2) = 6.8859 dBV. For the RME at the mentioned settings, output is 13 + 10*log10(0.6) - 4 = 6.7815 dBV. This is of course expecting the devices operating as specified and measured.
Yeah, that is a 2 dB difference and could explain it.Actually I've not matched the levels. Thanks for the maths, I'll try to compare both devices using the figures you have posted here. My comparison was done using RME single ended outputs at +7 dBu
Bob Stuart destroyed his reputation and lost all credibility with MQA marketing scam.
An update. I have level matched P200 and RME ADI-2 DAC FS. But perhaps more important: I reset JRiver player for Mac, unflagging "integer mode" for P200 (I doubt that it supports it because in MacOS MIDI app I see "custom" for audio format instead of real numbers when integer mode is on) and I've power cycled also Intona USB Isolator that is part of the USB chain with both DACs. Now subjectively the DACS are virtually not discernable. The artifacts in the bass region are gone. Probably the player was not bit perfect the first time I listen to.Yeah, that is a 2 dB difference and could explain it.
Because the owners of the MQA righs are charging money for its use (making gear more expensive) when it offers zero audible benefit. Just another rip off of the consumer..A best bang for the Buck DAC
It's nice that for so little money you don't have to worry about converting digital signals to an analog output device.
I've noticed a few MQA haters on this forum. I don't understand why they can't just see it as an extra feature that you can use, but don't have to.
Same here , just not on NAIM.Voted great. Problem is that since I discovered ASR, I realize how much big money I've wasted, mainly in NAIM gear...![]()