The Darbari: new speaker project

[captrajesh]

I'm also looking for soft start and speaker protection circuit for my impending PassDIY F5 build. How much did one cost you?

 

[vivek.saikia]

Your builds are truly inspirational!
Subscribed to your new project.

 

[trittya]

Very nice work there, FM tcpip. :thumbsup:
I've been following your blog for quite some time now and really appreciate the efforts you make to share your vast knowledge and experience. :clapping:
All the very best with the build, mate. I shall be following this thread eagerly. Do keep us posted and keep up the good work.

Oh yeah, Tarun, do make it convenient to go through this 2channelaudio article on miniDSP before you bite the bullet on the miniDSP (John K of 'Nao' speakers fame may not agree). hyeah:

2channelaudio: MiniDSP 2x4 (Analog to Analog) Crossover Implementation Experience

 

[tcpip]

Soft start and speaker protection circuits

I'm also looking for soft start and speaker protection circuit for my impending PassDIY F5 build. How much did one cost you?

I found lots of Chinese offerings on eBay.com, and I liked the general feel (the text, photos, details, and responsiveness to questions) of hiamplifier and jims_audio more than the others. You will find speaker protection and soft start circuits from both of them. I bought mine from jims_audio, as an assembled module. I believe I paid about USD 18 per module, and each module handles two speakers, as I said earlier. I am quite intrigued by the PCBs and kits sold by this seller -- there is someone in his team who understands audio circuits as thoroughly as a good veteran on diyaudio.com.

For soft-start for Class A, please check with the seller -- one of them told me that their circuit is not suited to Class A because the high quiescent current may damage their current-limiting resistors. Of course, you can then get their module and replace their resistors with higher-wattage ones, but you will have to check whether they are using resistors at all or using thermistors.

 

[tcpip]

Your builds are truly inspirational!
Subscribed to your new project.

:lol: My stories (and they do read like looong stories) are more the struggles of a confused and ambitious experimenter than any accomplished designer. Getting inspired by me may make you as confused as I.

 

[tcpip]

I've been following your blog for quite some time now and really appreciate the efforts you make to share your vast knowledge and experience.

A more accurate description would be "vast effort to share limited knowledge and experience." :lol:

All the very best with the build, mate. I shall be following this thread eagerly. Do keep us posted and keep up the good work.

Thanks a lot for the encouragement. And yes, i intend to keep writing, because it helps me structure my own thoughts.

Oh yeah, Tarun, do make it convenient to go through this 2channelaudio article on miniDSP before you bite the bullet on the miniDSP

Thanks a lot! Will definitely read this. The MiniDSP side is a huge unknown for me, and I've jumped in with both feet (I've actually completed the purchase of a MiniDSP 4x10HD already, so the deed is done), but I am sure there will be pitfalls and challenges. God only knows, I will need all the help I can get.

 

[tcpip]

MiniDSP issues

Oh yeah, Tarun, do make it convenient to go through this 2channelaudio article on miniDSP before you bite the bullet on the miniDSP (John K of 'Nao' speakers fame may not agree).

I read the article. I really appreciate your passing on the pointer to me.

I saw the following points which may give me a different conclusion than his:

• He tried the 2x4 module, which operates at a smaller word length and 48 KHz, while I am using the 4x8 module, which operates at a larger word length and 96 KHz
• I am hoping (without any quantitative evidence) that the ADC/DAC of the 4x8 module will be better than the 2x4 module, simply because they are more expensive overall
• He used the analog inputs, while I intend to feed digital inputs straight into the MiniDSP for all sources other than (someday) a turntable. This will eliminate the AD conversion at the input
• He tried using a volume control before feeding the analog input to the MiniDSP. This is completely a bad idea -- you cannot feed attenuated signals to an ADC if you want clean digital data. I intend to use the MiniDSP volume control at its output, which MiniDSP itself provides. (Of course, he says he even tried without the volume control, so maybe there is a problem independent of the low signal amplitude and quantisation noise.)

Let us see how my experience fares. Maybe my ears won't be as good as his, in which case I will live in ignorance-is-bliss Land. :lol:

I am actually quite hopeful about the MiniDSP because Uncle Seigfried The Man himself has blessed a miniDSP crossover for his latest OB speakers. (Of course, it uses different DA converters, but then those DA converters are not particularly fantastic either.)

Last but not least: I am admitting a secret thought: I had decided from Day 1 that if I don't like the sound of the MiniDSP, I will use it for getting my crossover right, and then will build an analog active crossover with exactly the same transfer functions. That way, MiniDSP will be used for experimentation, and when I'm ready to cast the xo in concrete, I will switch to an analog xo. Am keeping all bases covered.

"Watch this space!" as they say.

 

[trittya]

Re: MiniDSP issues

I read the article. I really appreciate your passing on the pointer to me.

One tries to be of help. What else are friends for, eh?

I saw the following points which may give me a different conclusion than his:

• He tried the 2x4 module, which operates at a smaller word length and 48 KHz, while I am using the 4x8 module, which operates at a larger word length and 96 KHz
• I am hoping (without any quantitative evidence) that the ADC/DAC of the 4x8 module will be better than the 2x4 module, simply because they are more expensive overall
• He used the analog inputs, while I intend to feed digital inputs straight into the MiniDSP for all sources other than (someday) a turntable. This will eliminate the AD conversion at the input
• He tried using a volume control before feeding the analog input to the MiniDSP. This is completely a bad idea -- you cannot feed attenuated signals to an ADC if you want clean digital data. I intend to use the MiniDSP volume control at its output, which MiniDSP itself provides. (Of course, he says he even tried without the volume control, so maybe there is a problem independent of the low signal amplitude and quantisation noise.)

Hmmmmmm . . . . Makes sense . . .

Let us see how my experience fares. Maybe my ears won't be as good as his, in which case I will live in ignorance-is-bliss Land. :lol:

The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you.
There isn't any other test. :indifferent14:
If the machine produces tranquility, it's right. :licklips:
If it disturbs you, it's wrong :sad: :annoyed:
UNTIL, either the machine :argue:
OR
your mind is changed. hyeah:
--- Robert M Pirsig

I am actually quite hopeful about the MiniDSP because Uncle Seigfried The Man himself has blessed a miniDSP crossover for his latest OB speakers. (Of course, it uses different DA converters, but then those DA converters are not particularly fantastic either.)

I appear to have missed that one. This happens to be the last of what I read on this. Can you send me a link to where Uncle SL wants to go digital. That'd be some reading, right? :licklips:

"Q5 - Will you offer a DSP based crossover/equalizer?"
"A5 - A DSP based xo/eq makes a lot of sense for manufacturing and cost reasons. For the DSP to become the sonic equivalent of the LX521 ASP will require a lot of attention to design and performance details in the digital and analogue bowels of the beast. I am not an expert in DSP application programming or even know how to chose the most suitable DSP engine. It is not on my priority list at this time."
FAQ LX521

Last but not least: I am admitting a secret thought: I had decided from Day 1 that if I don't like the sound of the MiniDSP, I will use it for getting my crossover right, and then will build an analog active crossover with exactly the same transfer functions. That way, MiniDSP will be used for experimentation, and when I'm ready to cast the xo in concrete, I will switch to an analog xo. Am keeping all bases covered.
"Watch this space!" as they say.

http://www.hifivision.com/active-sp...y-3-4-way-active-analog-xo-active-system.html

Cheerio, mate.

 

[tcpip]

Re: MiniDSP issues

The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you.
There isn't any other test. :indifferent14:
If the machine produces tranquility, it's right. :licklips:
If it disturbs you, it's wrong :sad: :annoyed:
UNTIL, either the machine :argue:
OR
your mind is changed. hyeah:
--- Robert M Pirsig

Too generic and open-ended for me to be able to agree with it.

"Q5 - Will you offer a DSP based crossover/equalizer?"
"A5 - A DSP based xo/eq makes a lot of sense for manufacturing and cost reasons. For the DSP to become the sonic equivalent of the LX521 ASP will require a lot of attention to design and performance details in the digital and analogue bowels of the beast. I am not an expert in DSP application programming or even know how to chose the most suitable DSP engine. It is not on my priority list at this time."
FAQ LX521

Yes, this was SL's original thinking on the subject. But he has accepted DSP based crossovers for his LX521 which someone has submitted to him for his evaluation: see here

I presume you've seen this page on SL's site? it sings quite a different tune from his earlier FAQ entry you have quoted. He tested this MiniDSP rig with an interesting multi-channel volume control from MSB, but if I use the 4x10HD, I don't need any separate box for volume control. In fact, he himself mentions that Tony @ MiniDSP suggested the use of the 4x10HD, which SL accepted. I don't think SL could be any more explicit in his approval: he says "The miniDSP 4x10 Hd strikes me as more than an alternative to the ASP, accommodating both analog and digital sources and also providing volume control."

If you see his initial opinion about the feasibility of a DSP based crossover, you can clearly see that the issues he points out are genuine, but not at all unforeseen or insurmountable -- a lot of modern DSP platforms are tackling them well. A proper set of biquads on top, some attention to levels to ensure no clipping, and a good DSP xo can be made. For instance, it's hard to justify that levels are a challenge when floating-point DSP chips now exist. So, frankly, SL's comments about the DSP challenge had left me quite underwhelmed (if there is such a word). And as a demonstration of his true greatness and humility, he has later accepted (with the MiniDSP xo for LX521) that a DSP-based xo is perfectly feasible as an alternative.

I agree that it's hard to design a crossover. But if you can do all the hard work to design a good analog active line-level xo, then converting that to a digital line-level active xo is not a serious challenge -- I refuse to believe otherwise.

 

[trittya]

Re: Am I guilty of analog thoughts in a digital world?

Too generic and open-ended for me to be able to agree with it.

You don't have to.
Nevertheless, after your comment, one is led to infer that either you haven't read the book under mention or you choose not to subscribe to the said point of view in a more holistic sense.
That quote, which, is also my signature on this forum was pasted there only in response to your u/m comment.

"Let us see how my experience fares. Maybe my ears won't be as good as his, in which case I will live in ignorance-is-bliss Land."

I'd only meant to say that, as long 'you' and 'your ears' like what 'your' miniDSP does/produces, then, whether or not it conforms to whats written in that article doesn't really matter. Until, of course . . . .
Having read your works, I daresay that you are more suited for/inclined towards living in a 'knowledge-is-power' kind of realm. Living in the other sort of 'land' is more apt for noobs like me, for want of better choice, apparently. hyeah:

Yes, this was SL's original thinking on the subject. But he has accepted DSP based crossovers for his LX521 which someone has submitted to him for his evaluation: see here

I presume you've seen this page on SL's site? it sings quite a different tune from his earlier FAQ entry you have quoted. He tested this MiniDSP rig with an interesting multi-channel volume control from MSB, but if I use the 4x10HD, I don't need any separate box for volume control. In fact, he himself mentions that Tony @ MiniDSP suggested the use of the 4x10HD, which SL accepted. I don't think SL could be any more explicit in his approval: he says "The miniDSP 4x10 Hd strikes me as more than an alternative to the ASP, accommodating both analog and digital sources and also providing volume control."

If you see his initial opinion about the feasibility of a DSP based crossover, you can clearly see that the issues he points out are genuine, but not at all unforeseen or insurmountable -- a lot of modern DSP platforms are tackling them well. A proper set of biquads on top, some attention to levels to ensure no clipping, and a good DSP xo can be made. For instance, it's hard to justify that levels are a challenge when floating-point DSP chips now exist. So, frankly, SL's comments about the DSP challenge had left me quite underwhelmed (if there is such a word). And as a demonstration of his true greatness and humility, he has later accepted (with the MiniDSP xo for LX521) that a DSP-based xo is perfectly feasible as an alternative.

Thanks for the link and the update, Tarun.
You presumed wrong, mate.
Like I'd said, I'd obviously missed it all. :sad:
Let me put one point across first, I am not against DSPs at all. My act of posting that link for you was consequent to friendly concern with the sole (DIY-type) aim of sharing what I'd read, all the more so because you were about to take a builder's decision and I wouldn't like to you make a relatively/comparitively "wrong" (albeit even arguably so) "one". :indifferent14:

Please do read what I had written in the other linked thread in reply to a FMs query about why I am (seemingly) hell-bent for analog.

"Why analog again - Analog watch, analog speedometer, analog tachometer, analog altimeters in most sophisticated fighter planes, analog sound(waves), analog brain, analog sensory perception, therefore analog XO. Jokes aside, asking/answering any more of this amounts to asking/answering why one wants to buy a DAC for listening to music that he/she doesn't have on analog media."

If you ponder a while on the part in bold, you'll agree with me when I say that I am not averse to DSP. Just that I want a state-of-the-art (within my means) analog setup first. Why do I get the feeling that I am being made to believe that I am paddling upstream?

I mean I'd not expect those poor pilots to stand in the dock for using/looking at an analog altimeter or expect fellow FMs to stand trial for wearing an analog chronometer to know/tell the time.

Would it be more "upmarket" if I have a digital odometer/tachometer/speedometer to know the distance travelled/RPM/speed by/of my bike/car?

Don't get me wrong here, Tarun, for I do earnestly recommend that you read this book as well as this diametrically opposite article on it at your earliest convenience.
Then, perhaps my you and some other fellow FMs who read it'd be more tolerant and less harsh of/on the old-schooler noob in me. hyeah: :yahoo:

I agree that it's hard to design a crossover. But if you can do all the hard work to design a good analog active line-level xo, then converting that to a digital line-level active xo is not a serious challenge -- I refuse to believe otherwise.

As you can see, Tarun, (especially if you dwell a mite more on the bold portion hereunder)
my comment from the other linked thread (that I'd commenced), indicates that we don't disagree, not on this one, at least.

"I just want to keep it all analog-to-the-max, shall we say? Will try digital stuff later, and that, I am aware is inevitable, sooner or later. But thats easy, switching from analog to digital. One can do so anytime when one wants/needs to. Just that this time ain't one of those . . ."

BTW, purely from the DIY enthusiast's perspective, I need to ask - where's the DIY or DIFOM (do-it-for-me aka custom-built) level of satisfaction with a DSP, eh?

Or am I going to be held to ransom for also sharing that I still like to tune my RE Bullet 350 CB points, ignition timing and carburettor by hand?
I don't mean to say that the later bike models are inferior in any way. Just that I can't afford another Bullet motorcycle at this juncture.
Maybe sometime later, of course . . .

On a parting note, some more quotes* from the same book.

The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure nature hasnt misled you into thinking you know something you actually dont know.

You look at where you're going and where you are and it never makes sense, but then you look back at where you've been and a pattern seems to emerge.

Sometimes it's a little better to travel than to arrive


Regardless of which way you go with the XOs, I am sanguine your 'Darbari' is going to sound fantastic. :licklips:
Looking forward to audition these soonest. All the very best, amigo. :thumbsup:

More on hearing from you.
Regards as ever,
Cheerio

(*Should you feel that these earthy quotes are too "open ended" & "generic", for you to agree with (you have the right not to agree, remember ),
then I'd be constrained to say that we need to talk this over, over a few drinks. :licklips:
Goes w/o saying that the booze'd be on me(yeah, I'll remember to carry a couple of single malt bottles along)but I do hope you won't take exception to my preference for good, humble old rum. )

 

[tcpip]

I'm also looking for soft start and speaker protection circuit for my impending PassDIY F5 build. How much did one cost you?

I contacted the seller and got details of this circuit. He is using the Omron G2R relay, a DPDT model, which gives him a 5A rating per contact. I think this is okay for my current build, but some of us may want a higher-current rated relay, just for improved contact. Just in case you were thinking about getting this one...

 

[kapvin]

MiniDSP next steps

Hi Tcpip,

i am certainly not keen on getting into an analog versus digital debate, but Re: the minidsp platform, I have a few comments. I do not know if your purchase of minidsp was serendipitious, or well researched, but the minidsp platform is one of the most tweakable ones that a DIYer has access to. And I do not mean only from a processing horsepower point of view.

for a moment consider the signal flow from source to amp via your crossover

1. Analog to digital conversion to native DSP sampling rate (potential source of degradation)
or
(For a digital source) Sample rate conversion from the input rate to the Native DSP rate (another potential source)

2. the processing - Minidsp uses IIR filters which are pretty efficient. (I do not want to get into an FIR versus IIR debate, since I have no experience of FIR filters)
3. the analog conversion - the DACs and their implementation defines the final output and in a DSP board that packs 8 within a price of 299USD, it probably is just not the latest cutting edge.

IMHO & experience with the 2x4 minidsp (and 2x8 which the 4x10 retail box is based on is a more modern platform) the ADC is not the best. but the minidsp accepts digital inputs and you can bypass the SRC issues by feeding native resolution stuff (trivial if you are on computer audio). finally, the minidsp accepts i2s inputs so you can do your choice of ADC if you so choose, later.

regarding the DAC conversion; there is a provision of i2s output, which allow you to connect up your choice of DAc without any of the issues involved with spdif conversion. minidsp itself is now selling a Sabre 9023 kit for all of USD40. you could choose to just change the mid channel or do all 3/4 pairs for usd 120/160. and if you want esoteric, you can get a a sabre 9018 kit for less than USD 100 (DIYin HK). i am sure even cheaper if you shop around. And with a 9018 you are talking cutting edge.

lastly as far as processing goes, i guess there is not much debate about the flexibility here. but from what I've read on the net, the Minidsp interface does not fully exploit the DSP's full capability. so if you are just a bit handy with programming, you could unlock even more.

Essentially, what I am saying is that unless you are a rather impatient person (and you do not strike me as such); I'd recommend you give minidsp a rather fair shake.
finally, if you tire of it quickly, I will be happy to take it off you hands.

standard disclaimer - no relationship with minidsp except as a customer.

 

[tcpip]

Re: Am I guilty of analog thoughts in a digital world?

Please do read what I had written in the other linked thread in reply to a FMs query about why I am (seemingly) hell-bent for analog.

I think most of us have read ZAAMM -- goes well with the DIY credo, I feel. I also read, last night, the other article you pointed me to from skeptic.com. ZAAMM has its limitations, and this skeptic's article too has too much of the tilting-against-windmills attitude for me to like it beyond a point. More importantly, I can't figure out why we need to discuss ZAAMM before we can discuss your choices of analog versus digital crossovers.

I think our exchange of thoughts is meandering too much for me to make much sense of it. I'm a simple-minded guy. Hope your speakers turn out great! And if you feel the need to ping me for any very specific technical issue, I'm always there.

 

[tcpip]

Re: MiniDSP next steps

i am certainly not keen on getting into an analog versus digital debate

Very smart! :lol:

but Re: the minidsp platform, I have a few comments. I do not know if your purchase of minidsp was serendipitious, or well researched...

I did a bit of poring over the PDF files that the manufacturer offers, and also looked through the biquad generating spreadsheet (open source stuff for minidsp hardware) but that's about all. I did not read through the forums on the minidsp site.

... the minidsp platform is one of the most tweakable ones that a DIYer has access to. And I do not mean only from a processing horsepower point of view.

I completely agree. (I rarely do, with anyone, on any issue, BTW :lol In fact, I think SL has got it all wrong when he does his R&D using an analog active xo. He should keep his soldering iron aside and use a MiniDSP 4x10HD, do all his trials, and maybe, when a year of work has passed and he's happy with both measurements and sound, he should design an analog active xo if he so wishes.

I find it strange that anyone will want to use an analog xo at the proto stage any more. Today, even SoundEasy has the ability to drive an eight-channel sound card with any music file of your choice where it can actually model your four-channel stereo passive or active xo in real time. I believe LSPCad can handle a six-channel output.

1. Analog to digital conversion to native DSP sampling rate (potential source of degradation)
or
(For a digital source) Sample rate conversion from the input rate to the Native DSP rate (another potential source)

Agreed.

2. the processing - Minidsp uses IIR filters which are pretty efficient. (I do not want to get into an FIR versus IIR debate, since I have no experience of FIR filters)

I have thought about this matter, and I am of the opinion that I will step out of the IIR arena only when I clearly identify a situation where I am unhappy with IIR. Currently, I am nowhere near that point -- I would be happy with analog active, and I am using digital xo only to simulate the analog active xo.

3. the analog conversion - the DACs and their implementation defines the final output and in a DSP board that packs 8 within a price of 299USD, it probably is just not the latest cutting edge.

Agree 100%.

But I decided to take this jump because I've seen what veteran designers have done on diyaudio.com with the Behringer digital xo box and their OB speakers. If anything, the Behringer box will have A/D and D/A circuits as poor as the MiniDSP, and yet these speakers seem to be getting good reviews. Therefore I decided that I may be at a point on the learning curve where I will not be affected by the limitations of the MiniDSP.

Given my track record (and as per jokes of my friends), I will outgrow the Darbari in some four different areas in about two years. They say that as soon as I build something, I learn enough about the subject to see its limitations and I begin plotting the next campaign. Therefore, maybe two years down the line, I will find the MiniDSP D/A intolerable.

IMHO & experience with the 2x4 minidsp (and 2x8 which the 4x10 retail box is based on is a more modern platform) the ADC is not the best. but the minidsp accepts digital inputs and you can bypass the SRC issues by feeding native resolution stuff (trivial if you are on computer audio).

I intend to feed it just 44.1K/16bit to start with, and I'll see what I get.

finally, the minidsp accepts i2s inputs so you can do your choice of ADC if you so choose, later.

In fact, I intend to explore all that once this project is done. The most serious limitation and irritant of the 4x10HD is that it allows only one SPDIF input and one set of unbalanced analog inputs. In reality, I need to use that box as a preamp, and I would like to feed it at least three SPDIF inputs and three sets of analog RCA. It's a pain that I can't do it. So, for this reason alone, if not for anything else, I think I'll have to move to a naked miniDSP board a couple of years down the line, with pure digital ins, and then build my own ADC and channel selector layer upstream of it.

regarding the DAC conversion; there is a provision of i2s output, which allow you to connect up your choice of DAc...

There be dragons down that route my friend. If I do any of these things, I lose the joy of a volume control integrated with the multi-channel output. I will only go the route of boutique DACs when I figure out a way to do a good multi-channel volume control with preferably +/- 0.2dB gain errors. Just a multi-channel Alps pot won't do.

You realise the criticality of this issue, right? In a normal two-channel setup, tracking errors just impact the position of the soundstage on a left-to-right axis. In an active xo like mine, tracking errors will screw up the tonal character of the speakers, which IMHO is far more serious, in fact quite intolerable. Just imagine -- you change the volume setting and the midrange gets louder or the treble gets duller .... Therefore, I will first have to build a six-channel or eight-channel relay-based volume control with its attendant reliability challenges. Therefore, for now, I shall a tight lid maintain on my ambitions and stick to the 4x10HD analog outs, and periodically kiss its volume control gratefully. :lol:

minidsp itself is now selling a Sabre 9023 kit for all of USD40. you could choose to just change the mid channel or do all 3/4 pairs for usd 120/160. and if you want esoteric, you can get a a sabre 9018 kit for less than USD 100 (DIYin HK). i am sure even cheaper if you shop around. And with a 9018 you are talking cutting edge.

This is very interesting, even if I don't do it for the Darbari. Please tell me more. How does the 9023 compare with the 9018? (I, given my "vast knowledge", was under the impression that 9023 would be better, because it's a larger integer. :lol How do these various DAC boards compare? Is there any difference between these Chinese DAC boards and the one from Twisted Pear Audio, for instance? Do all these super-fantabulous ultra-linear regulated power supplies and rhodium-filmed platinum-plated capacitors make an audible difference to the sound? Any inputs would be really great.

... but from what I've read on the net, the Minidsp interface does not fully exploit the DSP's full capability...

Hey, do you mean the official Adobe-AIR based interface and its GUI for setting filters and parametric EQ? That won't be of much use at all -- I might as well use a Behringer or something in that case. I intend to use the community-created spreadsheet to generate biquads and then feed them to the MiniDSP

Essentially, what I am saying is that unless you are a rather impatient person (and you do not strike me as such); I'd recommend you give minidsp a rather fair shake.

If you suffer from insomnia, you may try reading my account of the Asawari Mark I, and you will then see how long I take to do the most inane of things. Patience -- I don't have an option but to be patient!@#! I am sure I will be put through the wringer once again with the MiniDSP.

finally, if you tire of it quickly, I will be happy to take it off you hands.

Noted, sir. I intend to get rid of it only when I finish a custom-built preamp for the Darbari with a naked MiniDSP board inside it and my own AD and DA layers upstream and downstream of it. May be another two years. Don't wait up.

 

[indialogue]

Re: MiniDSP next steps

How does the 9023 compare with the 9018? (I, given my "vast knowledge", was under the impression that 9023 would be better, because it's a larger integer. :lol How do these various DAC boards compare? Is there any difference between these Chinese DAC boards and the one from Twisted Pear Audio, for instance? Do all these super-fantabulous ultra-linear regulated power supplies and rhodium-filmed platinum-plated capacitors make an audible difference to the sound? Any inputs would be really great.

Im not much of an audio expert, but the 9018 is the TOTL DAC chip produced by ESS (considered reference-grade by them), and the 9023 is the affordable version. The 9018 is now nearly the de-facto choice to USD800+ DAC manufacturers looking for an all-in-one chip solution, including the guys at Twisted Pear Audio who use it in the Buffalo. I've not had the chance to compare the 9023 to 9018 (I have the former), but the 9023 sounds quite good to my ears as well, especially for the price - I use a USD60 cheapo Chinese DAC for now (and have a 9018-based DAC on pre-order with delivery in Apr 2014!)

 

[tcpip]

Re: MiniDSP next steps

... the minidsp accepts digital inputs and you can bypass the SRC issues by feeding native resolution stuff (trivial if you are on computer audio).

A thought just occurred -- why would an upsampling done in my computer in software be better than upsampling done by the digital input of the MiniDSP?

 

[tcpip]

Re: MiniDSP next steps

...The 9018 is now nearly the de-facto choice to USD800+ DAC manufacturers looking for an all-in-one chip solution, including the guys at Twisted Pear Audio who use it in the Buffalo...

Would you hazard a guess about the relative quality of the Buffalo 8-channel DAC vis-a-vis the native MiniDSP 2x8 DAC? Will the Buffalo be audibly better?

 

[indialogue]

Re: MiniDSP next steps

Would you hazard a guess about the relative quality of the Buffalo 8-channel DAC vis-a-vis the native MiniDSP 2x8 DAC? Will the Buffalo be audibly better?

To be taken with a huge pinch of salt and based solely on market trends, but the ESS9018 DAC on the Buffalo does see more application in "audiophile DACs" than the Cirrus Logic DAC on the MiniDSP. Plus, the Buffalo is a one-trick pony, so I would assume that the design is more optimised for audio than the MiniDSP (though the specs on the 2x8 datasheet do look quite good).

Cost-wise, MiniDSP is more attractive and its a Swiss army knife. I'm sorry if this was more confusing than helpful :lol:

 

[tcpip]

Re: MiniDSP next steps

To be taken with a huge pinch of salt and based solely on market trends, but the ESS9018 DAC on the Buffalo does see more application in "audiophile DACs" than the Cirrus Logic DAC on the MiniDSP. Plus, the Buffalo is a one-trick pony, so I would assume that the design is more optimised for audio than the MiniDSP (though the specs on the 2x8 datasheet do look quite good).

Cost-wise, MiniDSP is more attractive and its a Swiss army knife. I'm sorry if this was more confusing than helpful :lol:

Understood, thanks. And as you rightly said, cost comparison is hard to do because MiniDSP is a different class, not a DAC at all. However, one can think of a composite system with a nanoDigi + an array of four 2-channel DAC.

 

[tcpip]

Re: MiniDSP next steps

... minidsp itself is now selling a Sabre 9023 kit for all of USD40...

Went through their products, but can't find it. Can you please help? :sad:

Edit: It's there! It is at the bottom of the drop-down menu, and my 12" screen did not show it.