advertisement


MDAC First Listen (part 00011110)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Julf said:
And if you don't like it, can you remove it so that you can be sure that it is completely removed?
Click to expand...

Actually you can. Take a restore point before you install it, then revert to the restore point once you've done your tests

One potential reason why it may not be complete foo would be if you're reading off a local hard disk and it introduces noise artefacts as it is accessed.

(BTW, I do believe it's foo)
 
ChrisPa said:
Actually you can. Take a restore point before you install it, then revert to the restore point once you've done your tests
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. That is good advice.

One potential reason why it may not be complete foo would be if you're reading off a local hard disk and it introduces noise artefacts as it is accessed.
Click to expand...

But don't most player programs use fairly big RAM buffers anyway, so the possible noise would only occur for a short time a couple of times per track - and wouldn't any other activity on the computer cause similar noise?
 
Julf said:
But don't most player programs use fairly big RAM buffers anyway, so the possible noise would only occur for a short time a couple of times per track - and wouldn't any other activity on the computer cause similar noise?
Click to expand...

More Likely is that the hard disc is randomly accessed by the operating system at any time.
 
Just tried WASAPI in Jriver and did not like the sound. Previously I was using ASIO4ALL. I didn't do a bit perfect test on WASAPI but set it up for bit perfect playback. A while ago I loaded the bit perfect test files and they passed with ASIO4ALL. Quite odd the sound seemed harder in the top frequencies and lacked the usual depth. I wasn't expecting a difference but changed to WASAPI on seeing a recommendation on the Jriver forum. It seems I am not alone as someone else has found this albeit with a different DAC but with the same ESS chip, which may be irrelevant.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?136141-WASAPI-vs-ASIO4ALL-Kernel-Streaming

Anyone else found this?
 
TwoSeventy said:
Just tried WASAPI in Jriver and did not like the sound. Previously I was using ASIO4ALL. I didn't do a bit perfect test on WASAPI but set it up for bit perfect playback. A while ago I loaded the bit perfect test files and they passed with ASIO4ALL. Quite odd the sound seemed harder in the top frequencies and lacked the usual depth. I wasn't expecting a difference but changed to WASAPI on seeing a recommendation on the Jriver forum. It seems I am not alone as someone else has found this albeit with a different DAC but with the same ESS chip, which may be irrelevant.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?136141-WASAPI-vs-ASIO4ALL-Kernel-Streaming

Anyone else found this?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but if transfer mode is asynch (with MDAC it is), bit-perfect and there is not much RF leakage / or properly isolated, there can't be any difference. Try double blind test.
 
Re JPLAY, read what it has to say on their website about what it does. Amongst other things it closes down all the unnecessary activity on the audio computer ( I operate it in the optimal dual computer mode). The difference in SQ between jriver and JPLAY is not subtle. As I said, try it, you can just uninstall it if you don't like it.
 
iansr said:
Re JPLAY, read what it has to say on their website about what it does. Amongst other things it closes down all the unnecessary activity on the audio computer ( I operate it in the optimal dual computer mode).
Click to expand...

But does that "unnecessary" activity make any difference? In a modern computer, audio I/O is handled by interrupts and DMA transfers using buffers and peripheral processors, so main CPU load doesn't affect the transfer as long as the CPU is able to transfer the data into the buffers without buffer under-runs - rather unlikely unless you have 99% CPU load.

The difference in SQ between jriver and JPLAY is not subtle.
Click to expand...

All the measurements I have seen have indicated that there is no difference at all.

As I said, try it
Click to expand...

Indeed, but make sure you try it double-blind, so you listen with your ears rather than with your eyes.
 
shaolin said:
Sorry, but if transfer mode is asynch (with MDAC it is), bit-perfect and there is not much RF leakage / or properly isolated, there can't be any difference. Try double blind test.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware there shouldn't be differences but there are. I am assuming you tried this before replying? Both my wife and I noticed the difference immediately on music we are both very familiar with. FWIW the USB input sounds different to the optical input both using bitperfect sources. I may set up a blind test at some point but after experiencing it and doing an internet search and finding somebody describing the exact same issue I thought maybe someone on this forum or John Westlake may be aware of this? It is no big deal to me as I have just switched back to the ASIO4ALL driver in the meantime as I prefer the sound. It's just Jriver recommends WASAPI as being technically better and as far as I am aware John Westlake runs windows XP so wouldn't have the Wasapi driver for testing.
 
Yes, the different inputs on the Mdac do sound different. No, different bit perfect software players do not sound different and have never been shown to do so in controlled tests.
 
Hello JohnW,

I was struggeling the last few months with myself if I should jump on the fascinating MDAC2 train or not. Now I convinced myself to do so. Is it still possible? If yes, I would like to have a salvaged MDAC2 (silver, german plug psu??) with of course new MDAC2 board and “Fusion” resistors. As far as I understood the cost are about 850 pounds + resistors (350 pounds). Is that correct? If it isn’t too late and I can join the project, I would then pay the first two instalments and for the savaged unit @ lakewestaudio.com. What else to do?

Thx
Picco
 
sq225917 said:
different bit perfect software players do not sound different and have never been shown to do so in controlled tests.
Click to expand...

My new, Win 8 ,USB 3 laptop sounds better than my old Win 7 laptop.

Both passed Bit Perfect.

Surprised me, as I wasn't expecting USB 3 to work at all.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sq225917 View Post
Yes, the different inputs on the Mdac do sound different. different bit perfect software players do not sound different and have never been shown to do so in controlled tests.
Click to expand...

My new, Win 8 ,USB 3 laptop sounds better than my old Win 7 laptop.

Both passed Bit Perfect.

Surprised me, as I wasn't expecting USB 3 to work at all.
Click to expand...

Win8 audio is different to Win7 (see disabledynamictick re DPC latency) but then both passed the bit perfect test. However the PC hardware has changed + USB version is different. So you could be listening to RF effects/absence of, unless you're using an isolator with both PC's?

Cheers
 
jamjar784 said:
Win8 audio is different to Win7 (see disabledynamictick re DPC latency) but then both passed the bit perfect test. However the PC hardware has changed + USB version is different. So you could be listening to RF effects/absence of, unless you're using an isolator with both PC's?

Cheers
Click to expand...

Tried an isolator with the Win 7 made no difference.

No isolator required with Win 8. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top