Jump to content

APL Denon 3910


Recommended Posts

it's not a huge difference. i'd rather have it than not have it, though. i've found software sample fiddling to be a bit more obvious (not necessarily always in a good way) but i've never tried a really good software sample fiddler.

I tried one of those upsampler DSPs on foobar .8 (that Empirical Audio recommends) and in this case with the M192 things sounded worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

what do you think about, oh, i don't know, fancy resampling using something like this, feeding an AD1583?

I think the most interesting use of DSP in this context is with the AD1955 where it seems it can use something like the SHARC to externally control it. Anagram utilises this, AFAIK. It apparently improves the function of the 'scrambling' function as well as the digital filter (which is required to really take advantage of scrambling).

grawk - I don't think I even for a moment suggested that it wasn't of paramount importance that people enjoy their gear and that it sounds good. Discussing design on head-case doesn't interfere with that general premise. However, I do think good design and good sound are pretty closely related, and that it's worthwhile to investigate what makes for good design, plus it's interesting to have a discussion with other head-casers about it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interpolation isn't the same as something like a feedforward from the higher resolution master.
I know. But that's not what you said, you said it doesn't add anything, my point was that of course it does add something, and I think you knew that already when you said it, I was just getting pedantic about your phrasing. I think your point was that it can't replace what was lost at the point of digitization, with which I agree, but I think you missed my point.
Secondly, the interpolation is of course dependent upon sampling precision...
...amongst other things, one of which I consider more important when discussing DACs, and that is the quality of the interpolation/upsampling algorithm. (The DACs don't affect the sampling precision if you're stuck with CD's.)
I'm not saying interpolation of any sort if an absolutely poor idea in all situations, but I think it's better handled at the filter and in much more tightly controlled environment with an eye towards improving filter performance rather than giving pretty numbers for the spec sheet.
Stressed for accuracy -- that is, like, your opinion, man. As has already been pointed out, we aren't as concerned with '...pretty numbers for the spec sheet...', either, but the pleasure derived from the resultant listening experience. I, personally, believe that electronics design is a game of trading compromises in one area for compromises in another -- frequency response for phase accuracy, for example -- and that no area should be ignored in terms of possible improvements. What's wrong with playing with the signal in the digital realm if you can? Sure if it's at the expense of the analogue stage, then...bad, but it doesn't necessarily have to be, so why not? I mean, you have to be careful that you don't fuck it up worse, but you always have to do that at every stage anyways, it's not a guarantee that you're going to fuck things up just because you do something to the signal. It's called experimentation, the very essence of engineering. Edited by Dusty Chalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was slyly referring to the Anagram system that Audio Aero uses.

Ah, OK. Scrambling is a pretty cool function. I guess in sort of general principle it's another form of noise shaping, as it basically appears to be about randomising distribution of the data across the MSBs in the dac (which is composed of several 5 bit ladders). Thereafter, you'd want a tightly controlled filter (interpolation, LPF, noise shaping, etc.), which I guess is the major point in which the SHARC comes in, though maybe it controls the scrambling as well. Good filters take a lot of processing power, hence the external DSP.

Dusty - Yes, I think you got my point about reconstruction. However, I think perhaps I wasn't clear about what I think of digital processing. I'm not against it as some sort of blanket rule; in fact, I think signal processing is crucial to good performance. The concern in this case was that the use of an ASRC in this manner could undermine the performance of the digital filter, which is why I brought it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is, like, your opinion, man. As has already been pointed out, we aren't as concerned with '...pretty numbers for the spec sheet...',

:confused: I can't hear a difference when I blind test.

Which matters more:

that filburt understand and agree with the design

it sounds better to the person who owns the device

what is this, head-fi? geez....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.