Why aren't we pushing for more 4-8 channel DACS for a quality Stereo setup

[NiagaraPete]

AS MY TITLE CAUSED CONFUSION- THIS IS FOR A STEREO SETUP (NOT THEATER OR SURROUND)
It seems that the optimal way forward with sound quality is to get everything refined in the digital world, before sending it to great amps. In my opinion, this means using software to set active crossovers and DSP, then sending it through a great reclocking and DAC setup, and then having separate amps/amp modules for their respective driver(s). Not having the expense of passive crossover components, better signal preservation, more efficiently, and the ability to easily do steep roll offs is a big deal, IMO. However, it seems that there is not really a big push for this, in that there aren't really any great measuring DAC's for 4-8 channels.

MiniDSP has good software, but products don't really measure well. Motu has some workable things but they tend to be more professional use, so they are often huge with way more stuff than you need (because it is recording studio stuff). Allo has the Piano DAC, which is fine for what it is, but nothing stellar.

I looked at just taking something like 2 Topping DAC's, but apparently there are issues with not having a master clock to synch them together.

So, I am just wondering, why more people aren't wanting to do this type of setup, and if people do want this- how can we lobby to get Topping/SMSL/Etc. to make a DAC so we can start ditching our passive crossovers and get everything dialed in better than ever.

Do you mean something like this? https://www.tpdz.net/productinfo/590763.html

 

[somebodyelse]

Do you mean something like this? https://www.tpdz.net/productinfo/590763.html

Looks like a 2 channel DAC to me, so no.

 

[NiagaraPete]

Looks like a 2 channel DAC to me, so no.

Yes but why 4 DAC chips? "Sound of a quad DAC" is part of the selling.

 

[B&WTube]

Yes but why 4 DAC chips? "Sound of a quad DAC" is part of the selling.

Yeah, when I clicked the Topping link you posted- at first I was super excited when it said 8 balanced outs…but then saw it only had 2 outs, and then I was just WTF is this about?

 

[somebodyelse]

Yes but why 4 DAC chips? "Sound of a quad DAC" is part of the selling.

Same as for the Okto dac8 stereo, among others - improved signal to noise ratio and potentially improved linearity. See here for some pros and cons. I expect it's discussed in the dac8 stereo review thread too, but there's a fair bit of it to wade through.

 

[DWPress]

Chiming in to keep the thread going and also find myself in need unfortunately. My beloved Okto Dac8 Pro took a power surge a couple weeks before Christmas, I used it as an active XO for two 3-way speakers and 2 subs so a quiet unmusical holiday in the studio.

I'm back to using my old MiniDSP 4x10 for XO duty, obviously it's nowhere close to an A/B comparison but I do note the midrange sibilance that plagued me in the past with its use. Otherwise I am pleasantly surprised that the results are quite listenable post Okto, haven't even run any measurement sweeps yet to verify levels or that my convolution filters for LR are still viable with the change of hardware.

Before I relented to going back to the miniDSP I tried using my Motu Ultralite AVB but couldn't reliably get 8 channels going with the convolution based XO (see my signature) I was using with my Okto. I even tried an old Asus Xonar MKII but the hit in sound quality and noise floor were to evident at higher SPL.

While waiting to hear back from Pavel at Okto I've been looking for anything that might work. Motu Ultrlite MK5 would be near perfect but no units available until March at the earliest. The Danville dspNexus 2/8 won't be available until late first quarter of 2022 but I'm not sold on that unit either as it looks like just a better version of the miniDSP 4x10 with a Shark processor and Pi4 I don't need or want.

I'm on a Mac primarily and now all my amps have balanced connections, so my needs get even more niche within this niche thread. The Okto has it all (analog in would be nice) with looks, remote, transparency and a big honkin knob with visual volume reference. I'm going to miss it until I get a replacement.

@JohnYang1997 - please consider our requests! (feeding my 4x10 digital with a D10 and just picked up a PA5 to try with the tweets)

 

[thulle]

Did some testing on a Focusrite 18i20 3rd gen using REW. Stationary PC -> USB -> 18i20 -> Cosmos ADC @ 4.5 Vrms setting. All I/O @ 96 kS/s. 4V verified with Siglent multimeter to 4.000V. Combining w the measurements @mdsimon2 did earlier, so tried keeping the same settings in REW: 8 average 128k Blackman-Harris 7 FFT.
First measurements I'm doing w the Cosmos, so caveat emptor. Especially as you'll see I'm getting quite a lot of signal-related noise, and IMD.
Nothing connected to 18i20 except power cord, USB from PC and TRS->XLR for the ADC.
I'll redo these on a battery powered laptop, but might be a few weeks until I got time for it.

​

	Motu UL mk5	18i20 gen2	18i20 gen3
THD+N, 1 kHz @4 V, 20-22000 Hz	-105.3 dB	-101.2 dB	-98.3 dB
Residual noise, 20-22000 Hz	19.1 µV	30.1 µV	28,8 µV
IMD, 60 Hz + 7000 Hz @3.9 V	-112.8 dB	-100.4 dB	-83.4 dB
IMD, 250 Hz + 8000 Hz @3.9 V	-110.8 dB	-102.3 dB	-83.8 dB
19000 Hz + 20000 Hz @3.3 V	-111.5 dB	-85.2 dB	-78.6 dB

Spoiler: 1 kHz THD+N @ 4 V

gen3:

gen2:

Spoiler: Residual noise, 20-22000 Hz

gen3:

gen2:

Spoiler: IMD, 60 Hz + 7000 Hz @3.9 V

gen3:

gen2:

Spoiler: IMD, 250 Hz + 8000 Hz @3.9 V

gen3:

gen2:

Spoiler: 19000 Hz + 20000 Hz @3.3 V

gen3:

gen2:

Spoiler: THD vs Level, 1 kHz, 20 Hz to 22000 Hz

gen3:

Light blue: noise floor, Red: THD, Dark green: Noise, Grey: THD+N
gen2:

Spoiler: THD vs frequency, 4 V, 48000 Hz bandwidth

gen2:

Red: THD, Dark red: 2nd harmonic, Orange: 3rd, Green: 5th, Dark green: Noise, Grey: THD+N, Light blue: noise floor.

gen2 (blue) & motu mk5 (green):

Spoiler: Frequency response at 4 V

gen3 zoomed:

gen3:

gen2 (brown) & mk5 (blue):

 

[dearchap]

Ok so I've read almost half of this thread and don't have a clue of what the OP is trying to achieve. Why are 6/8 channel output DACs necessary in the first place(for stereo) ? I can understand 4 outputs in case you have 2 speakers and 2 subs. Where does CamillaDSP come into the picture here ?

 

[Robin L]

Ok so I've read almost half of this thread and don't have a clue of what the OP is trying to achieve. Why are 6/8 channel output DACs necessary in the first place(for stereo) ? I can understand 4 outputs in case you have 2 speakers and 2 subs. Where does CamillaDSP come into the picture here ?

With systems that have electronic crossovers that send a line level signal to each speaker in a configuration with multiple drivers, the usual woofer, mid and tweeter arrangement. Having this arrangement allows for much better equalization in the digital domain and better crossovers..

 

[NiagaraPete]

Ok so I've read almost half of this thread and don't have a clue of what the OP is trying to achieve. Why are 6/8 channel output DACs necessary in the first place(for stereo) ? I can understand 4 outputs in case you have 2 speakers and 2 subs. Where does CamillaDSP come into the picture here ?

I’m going to say multi speaker or bi/tri amping.

 

[mdsimon2]

Ok so I've read almost half of this thread and don't have a clue of what the OP is trying to achieve. Why are 6/8 channel output DACs necessary in the first place(for stereo) ? I can understand 4 outputs in case you have 2 speakers and 2 subs. Where does CamillaDSP come into the picture here ?

Speakers where you are using an active crossover and multiple power amplifiers. Things like the the Linkwitz designs, ASR Directiva R1 w/ subs, John K's Nao Note, etc. Such technology is used extensively in many high performing commercial active designs (Genelec, JBL, Neumann, etc).

Although I do think the OP's idea of converting a commercial passive design to active is in general not worth the effort.

Michael

 

[dualazmak]

Hello @dearchap,​

Just for your reference, we need multichannel-DAC in even pure L+R stereo system if you would like to establish multichannel multi-driver multi-way multi-amplifier stereo audio system eliminating all the passive LCR crossover network.

My latest system setup diagram would be of interesting for your quick understanding; this is actually 5-way 10-channel L&R "stereo" audio system including L&R sub-woofers.

 

[jtwrace]

Hello @dearchap,​

Just for your reference, we need multichannel-DAC in even pure L+R stereo system if you would like to establish multichannel multi-driver multi-way multi-amplifier stereo audio system eliminating all the passive LCR crossover network.

My latest system setup diagram would be of interesting for your quick understanding.

And to add to this, my system for instance is (2) JBL M2's with (4) subwoofers. So that's 8 channels that I use for a fully active setup using Audiolense.

 

[krabapple]

Ok so I've read almost half of this thread and don't have a clue of what the OP is trying to achieve. Why are 6/8 channel output DACs necessary in the first place(for stereo) ? I can understand 4 outputs in case you have 2 speakers and 2 subs. Where does CamillaDSP come into the picture here ?

I guess this is just a very complicated way of using active speakers?

 

[DWPress]

guess this is just a very complicated way of using active speakers?

Active speakers and active XO are two completely different things though the better active speakers have their own DSP usually to do the XO.

 

[krabapple]

like I said.

Stereo reproduction is already inherently flawed. And here was have yet another strenuous audiophile attempt to polish the turd.

Over and out on this thread.

 

[dearchap]

@dualazmak Thanks for the link. I think I understand. So you want to drive 3-4 way speakers and so all the crossover filtering in the DSP before sending it out to the speakers.

p.s Your system is amazing. I am wondering how you significant other hasnt run you out of the house for spending so much on audio equipment

 

[thulle]

I guess this is just a very complicated way of using active speakers?

I'd say it's more like making your own, very adjustable, active speaker setup.

yet another attempt to polish the turd.

Or, making the most with the turds we got.

 

[Andrej]

Given the cost of wide bandwidth (read with low frequencies at high volume - otherwise not audible - and low distortion) loudspeakers, and my enjoyment of woodworking, I have tried passive x-overs, analog active, and digital active solutions. I am a BIG fan of the latter. I have tried Behringer (more than adequate for most things), an onkyo/integra recveiver from few years back (my favorite inexpensive solution, it has internal 2-way digital x-over, plus sub filtering, audyssey xt32 and multiple power amps - all you need is some drive units and boxes, all for <$400 used (onkyo 818 receiver)).
I was looking into a miniDSP 2x8 solution plus Octo DAC, but in one review here of a miniDSP x-over, the attenuation was only in the high 40dB range - this is inadequate with stiff cones having breakups as much as 30dB above nominal output.
My solution, for now, is to use Hypex plate amps, and I am very happy with those. A simple box to house them, and you have a competent, cost effective solution.

 

[dearchap]

Would something like this work ? https://www.audiosavings.com/audioc...ZvAFB3O2mPmeTWr5GrlkDp_gpld9A-AcaAoqrEALw_wcB

It has 5 line outputs though