advertisement


MDAC first listen (part XVIII)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi John, Looking forward to trying the new software :)

This might sound lazy of me but what finally convinced me to return to the very first firmware was remembering the moment when I first heard the MDAC and how happy it made me. This was a *real* improvement over the CDQ without any doubt. After that, much as I could hear subtle differences between some of the new software versions, I think I'd have had to invest a whole lot more time to come to any valid conclusion about which was truly the best. With my inadequately short listening tests, I might have ended up making a bad decision. In the end, v0.90 was the one certainty I could return to.

On a slightly different subject, do you remember my ancient request to enable streaming of data from SPDIF out of the USB? The idea was that I'd be able to rip SACDs from my OPPO bluray player, but I've since seen you saying that you're less than impressed with what you've heard from players doing DSD=>PCM conversion (which is what I'd be doing), so do you think I should abandon the whole idea?

This leads me to wondering:
If the TDAC is going to be DSD capable, is there any chance that the MTRN will be able to play SACD discs? I think I vaguely remember you saying not, but there's no harm in asking again :)

Cheers,
Tim
 
Asphaltradler said:
I didn't realize that it will be 2 different versions.
If you (as I) see the 0.9 version as the better sounding, and the "super" 0.9 will re-build everything from 0.9 to a0.8, why then starting at the "old" a0.8 at all for further development and not at the new super a0.9 as starting point?


Regarding the different filters, there was a link to an enlightening article about DA filters some time ago. But I was not sure after reading it where it fits into the MDac filters.

Am I right that the OT filters are optimized for no Pre-ringing of fast signals? To my ears they are especially good for fast transients as a close miked bass drum, and that would fit I think. Following toughts are perhaps completely wrong, please correct me someone then!

Group delay (is that the correct term) would then be not optimal with OT, i.e. different frequencies can arrive at slightly different times.

MP on the other hand would be Group delay optimized, with sacrifice in transients. For me, it seems best with well recorded classical music to achieve optimum space, but I'm not sure. I would think, though, that with real 2-microphone recordings (for me, that's still the best recording method) the different delays are most important for realistic depth and width.

And what about the OS filter? It seems to have the fastest lowering high freq. tail as it seems. What exactly is the meaning of Optimal Spectrum?

It would be most useful if these parameters would be described somehow in the Wiki! I'm sure something has been written here and there, but it's almost impossible to find that again.

(NB It's funny that audiophiles seem to care so much about the play back part and so few about how their music is recorded. I think that a multitrack record mixed together with amplitude stereo effects is purely unnatural compared with a stereo imagining gained by two omni micros which produce phase shifts and delays as in real life. The two systems will produce quite different results (e.g. there are almost no gain differences for left and right instruments, but vast delays) and probably will need different measures for optimal play back. Perhaps different filters? What is sure is that different loudspeakers and amplifiers can do this or that better. With headphones it's another thing, too - I can't listen to modern compressed mixed sounds very long with phones, but the old Denon recordings I mentioned miked with 2 B&K mics sound as easy and ambient as you were really there...

Is that only my opinion? Rarely found something along these lines)
Click to expand...
Might not be fully accurate, but might be of some help in answering your questions about DAC filters:

http://www.audiostream.com/content/...ied-todays-audio-dacs-resonessence-labs-techn
 
JohnW said:
Doubt it will be ready tonight - Dominiks has two releases pending:-

A "Super" V0.90 (A0.9) which we hope retains V0.90 SQ but with the added features of A0.8

A A0.9+ with extra features (AC3 pass-though, and OS / MP filter SQ enhancements etc).
Click to expand...


Will it still be possible to return to a previous version?
 
JohnW said:
Doubt it will be ready tonight - Dominiks has two releases pending:-

A "Super" V0.90 (A0.9) which we hope retains V0.90 SQ but with the added features of A0.8

A A0.9+ with extra features (AC3 pass-though, and OS / MP filter SQ enhancements etc).
Click to expand...
I can't go back to the original version, because there is no Mac version of it. So I am waiting for the new update very much. Any idea when it s coming out?
 
haridhos said:
Might not be fully accurate, but might be of some help in answering your questions about DAC filters:

http://www.audiostream.com/content/...ied-todays-audio-dacs-resonessence-labs-techn
Click to expand...
That was the document I was referring to. But I'm not sure where the MDac filters fit in there.
Because of that my question to the developers if they can put some light on the nature of the different filters, best done in the Wiki.
Also, I miss consideration of the relation between recording technique (AB or XY microphoning for example) and playback techniques. Has no one thought about that? I think it's an interesting point. Come on, there must be some opinions!

Audio is not created by magic on a CD (except for pure computer music perhaps), so if I want best reproduction of music I must take into account how the sound waves digital representation got there, then think about how I can recreate them. Isn't that so?
 
JohnW said:
Yes, just like the old versions - we are keen for feedback from owners :)
Click to expand...
I still don't understand the necessity for 2 version. As asked above:
Asphaltradler said:
I didn't realize that it will be 2 different versions.
If you (as I) see the 0.9 version as the better sounding, and the "super" 0.9 will re-build everything from 0.9 to a0.8, why then starting at the "old" a0.8 at all for further development and not at the new super a0.9 as starting point?
Click to expand...

Any thoughts about the recording technique / filter question?
 
Asphaltradler said:
Any thoughts about the recording technique / filter question?
Click to expand...

Recording technique, in most cases, is not quite the purist simplicity you appear to imagine. The question you ask could be the subject of a book, not a forum posting.

Why not just pick the filters you like and don't obsess about it any further?
 
finesensations said:
I could be wrong but I read from John's post (#842) that both versions would be based on V0.90, so not sure what you are referring to.
Click to expand...

I came to a different conclusion. One version based on V0.90 with features from A0.08 and the other based on A0.09 with new stuff.
 
fusion5 said:
Indeed. Although I need a pair of MIMPs before making extensive SQ comparisons.
Click to expand...

Good point.

Although I'm very happy with the SQ my amp provides within my system, the only 'upgrade' I'm seriously considering is MIMP.

One would probably do but as my amp is rated at 80wpc/8ohms (Dynamic IHF is quoted as 380watts/1ohm) I will probably need to go for a pair to get any real 'upgrade' benefit.

Waiting to see the final specification, what is on offer and at what price.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top