Topic: I want to convert my extra laptop as an audio source- HELP

[shrek7]

TeraDak Chameleon - 16 paralleled Philips TDA1543 NOS (non-oversampling) DACs. Parang DAC AH. Lupet!!!

korek! nakita ko yung lite audio AH dac, 8 tda1543 lang kaya nag teradak na ako para 16, hehehehehe! madami pa pwedeng gawing modification kaso dinadahan dahan ko muna, your suggestion is most welcome sir!

[rascal101]

Oo. Mas malupit nga iyung Chameleon. 16 ba naman.

Iba talaga basta paralleled DAC.

[shrek7]

Oo. Mas malupit nga iyung Chameleon. 16 ba naman.

Iba talaga basta paralleled DAC.

sir, may suggestion si sir JoeyGS, M2Tech Hiface USB to SPDIF converter, kailangan ko pa ba nito para mas maganda ang audio or this is already being provided by my current DAC? opinion naman oh? para sure! hehehehe!

[shoktongxxx]

ah ganon ba? di kasi talaga ako familiar sa computers eh, sa madaling salita eh eng eng talaga ako sa ganitong topic, buti na lang sinabi mo agad sir na di na kailangan, kasi bigla akong nangati nung sinabi mo kasi mukhang sulit sa presyo eh! ang dac ko eh teradak chameleon.  

ah yan ba yung nasa avatar mo sir? can you PM me the price.

[rascal101]

sir, may suggestion si sir JoeyGS, M2Tech Hiface USB to SPDIF converter, kailangan ko pa ba nito para mas maganda ang audio or this is already being provided by my current DAC? opinion naman oh? para sure! hehehehe!

Based on what I know these type of DACs are using microcontrollers with built-in audio DAC. These microcontroller are not dedicated audio DACs per se. As such, I don't think it is fair to compare a dedicated audio parallel DAC such a TeraDak Chameleon vs this M2Tech Hiface. However, looking into the reviews of TDA154x type DACs should show why these DACs are still very popular despite their age.

[shrek7]

ah yan ba yung nasa avatar mo sir? can you PM me the price.

yes sir eto nga po yung nasa avatar, pm sent. 

Based on what I know these type of DACs are using microcontrollers with built-in audio DAC. These microcontroller are not dedicated audio DACs per se. As such, I don't think it is fair to compare a dedicated audio parallel DAC such a TeraDak Chameleon vs this M2Tech Hiface. However, looking into the reviews of TDA154x type DACs should show why these DACs are still very popular despite their age.

the net suggests that m2tech should be placed between the digital source and dac for the digital source to output 24bit/192khz, but my dac already are capable of utilizing 24/96khz. will I still benefit from this?

[rascal101]

My earlier statement suffer from ignorance ...

Reading further, I think there are benefits to using a USB to SPDIF converter in terms of jitter reduction and high sample rates. However, if your DAC already has good jitter performance and 24bit/192khz sample rate it may be redundant to use a USB to SPDIF converter.

[shrek7]

My earlier statement suffer from ignorance ...

Reading further, I think there are benefits to using a USB to SPDIF converter in terms of jitter reduction and high sample rates. However, if your DAC already has good jitter performance and 24bit/192khz sample rate it may be redundant to use a USB to SPDIF converter.

malaki ba ang difference ng 24/96 sa 24/192 sa sound?

[rascal101]

malaki ba ang difference ng 24/96 sa 24/192 sa sound?

Iyung set-up ko sa bahay 16bit 2x oversampling so 16/96 siya. Gusto ko nga non-oversampling so 16/44 ng target ko. Sa pandinig ko, habang tumataas iyung oversampling rate lumalayo sa pagka-natural iyung tunog.

Ang gusto ko lang sa DAC ng CDP ko ay parallel input. Karamihan kasi ng DAC serial input kaya isa isa niyang kinukuha iyung data. Iyung parallel sabay sabay. Dahil parallel processing din iyung utak natin mas malapit sa natural para sa akin iyung parallel processing sa serial processing. Marahil ito ang dahilan kung bakit maraming microprocessor na naglalabasan ay multi-processor type na halimbawa core 2 duo etc.

Mabagal ang serial sa parallel kaya para gumanda o umayos ang performance tinataasan iyung sampling rate at resolution ng serial type converters. Ito ang dahilan kung bakit usong uso mga 24bit 192KHz ngayon. Karamihan serial kasi mga DAC - mas tipid kasi sa manufacturer.

Isang magandang halimbawa ng parallel processing ay iyung SCSI type na hard disk na parallel iyung data lines. Sa mga server farms, SCSI ang popular dahil maraming tao uma access sa data ng sabay sabay. Kung serial type (USB o IDE) malamang sumemplang na iyung server. Maganda lang ang serial hard disk sa personal na gamitan.

[Stagea]

Isang magandang halimbawa ng parallel processing ay iyung SCSI type na hard disk na parallel iyung data lines. Sa mga server farms, SCSI ang popular dahil maraming tao uma access sa data ng sabay sabay. Kung serial type (USB o IDE) malamang sumemplang na iyung server. Maganda lang ang serial hard disk sa personal na gamitan.

Parallel po ang ATA (aka PATA / IDE). SATA is Serial, and SCSI can be either Parallel or Serial depending on variant. In fact, the more popular SCSI variants today are serialized interfaces (SAS).

Ang speed ng parallel at serial should be the same, if we're talking about the same data rate. Kung 24/192 (or 16/44 or kung ano man) na parallel or serial, pareho lang ang data na kinakain nila iba lang ang feeding method. There might be certain advantages and disadvantages for each side sa conversion part, but it's not speed/data rate related.

Sa mga current CPU, madalas na ang multi-core ngayon since they're trying to hit a sweet spot for performance versus thermals, form factor and cost (engineering constraints). When you look at their architecture, each pipeline of each core inside the multi-core processor is already very serialized (an instruction is broken down and handled through multiple stages to enable higher clock/data rates). Maraming debates diyan about deep pipelines and high clock rates, versus shallow ones and lower clock rates (and how branch prediction and prefetch/read ahead affect the design's performance and the resulting demands on other components). May factor din kung ano ang ipaparallel na pipelines within a core, kung pare pareho or specialized. Related din yung level ng multithreading (to optimize for multicore designs) that is worthwhile for application optimization as they also interfere because they still access common resources. Processors are far more complex than DACs, so I don't think they're even comparable.

In laymans terms, sa mass market use, nauso ang multicore processors dahil the designers have started to reach the limits of highly serial designs (those serial designs still had some parallel things internally) with the current manufacturing technology. What they did is to run those serial designs in parallel to raise maximum IPC (in most cases, it is still largely serially processed per core, distributed to parallel pipelines, which is then serially processed in each pipeline in appropriate data units).

[rascal101]

My point was to simply compare serial data and parallel data processing. So, it should not matter whether it is DAC or processors. In simple terms, it is much faster to do tasks and output results when you have sufficient resources in parallel rather than serial at same speeds. The classic example would be the manufacturing plant. If tasks were done (a) serially (much of the time) can the plant output as many products as when the plant does (b) parallel tasks (much of the time) or (c) combined parallel (some time) with serial (some time)?

Going back to IDE and SCSI and simplifying, from what I know IDE falls into (c) and SCSI falls into (b).

[Stagea]

My point was to simply compare serial data and parallel data processing. So, it should not matter whether it is DAC or processors. In simple terms, it is much faster to do tasks and output results when you have sufficient resources in parallel rather than serial at same speeds. The classic example would be the manufacturing plant. If tasks were done (a) serially (all the time) can the plant output as many products as when the plant does (b) parallel tasks (all the time) or (c) combined parallel (some time) with serial (some time)?

Going back to IDE and SCSI, from what I know IDE falls into (c) and SCSI falls into (b).

If you have 10 people available to make cars, you can either have each one make a car at a time at a slower rate (parallel), or divide the tasks into simpler ones and create a single assembly line (serial). The former takes in more tasks simultaneously at the beginning, while the latter beats faster with one output at a time (when the pipeline is full, you'd actually have 10 cars being worked on in different states of production). If both layouts churn out 10 cars per day, I would say that they are about equally fast.

There are applications when serialized design would lead to more efficient use of transistors/silicon (like in most processor pipelines, as they can build each stage to specialize on certain tasks to reach very high clock rates), while simpler tasks may favor a more parallel architecture. There is just no hard and fast rule that one is faster than the other.

IDE is just WD's term for ATA (or PATA). It transmits 16-bits at a time in parallel, via the 40-pin cable (notebook implementations often had it in 44-pin, but the extra pins are just for power).

SCSI was frequently available in parallel (aka SPI) in the past and often came in both 8-bit and 16-bit variants. However, the predominant SCSI variant now is SAS (Serial Attached SCSI). SAS is a serial interface, hence the low pin count.

[rascal101]

Whether dealing with hardware (microprocessors, DACs etc) processing and business or multiple activities it is basically similar. For example, restaurant with 5 tables and 10 chairs.

(a) 5 employees - 1 manager/guest relations officer, 1 cashier, 1 cook, 2 waiters
(b) 1 employee - manager, cashier, cook, waiter, guest relations officer

Which can better accomodate 10 customers and satisfy their needs in less time assuming they all come in at the same time?

[Stagea]

Whether dealing with hardware (microprocessors, DACs etc) processing and business or multiple activities it is basically similar. For example, restaurant with 5 tables and 10 chairs.

(a) 5 employees - 1 manager/guest relations officer, 1 cashier, 1 cook, 2 waiters
(b) 1 employee - manager, cashier, cook, waiter, guest relations officer

Which can better accomodate 10 customers and satisfy their needs in less time assuming they all come in at the same time?

As with the DAC example, if they can both handle the same data rate, then both arrangements should be more or less equivalent. If you can turn-around the same number of customers per unit time, your processing speed is the same.

This might not sound logical to some because in your restaurant example, you're just adding parallelism without adding any serial optimization. That is rarely the case with most designs, as serial equivalents are designed to run at higher rates to provide comparable bandwidth.

If a DAC is to handle 24/192 for example, it needs to process 192000 samples of 24-bits each per second. That translates to a 4608000 bits per second data rate, and it remains that way whether you transmit and/or process that data stream in parallel or serially. You can process it serially as a single-bit stream at 4.608MHz or do 24-bits in parallel at 0.192MHz (or any combination you can think of... like 4-bits in parallel at 1.152Mhz), yet the data rate will remain the same (not counting overhead). Both I2S and SPDIF are serial interfaces.

Multi-Bit and Delta-Sigma DACs both have their Pros and Cons, but if they are handling the same input stream, then they are doing it at the same rate/speed to provide proper real-time playback.

[rascal101]

Looking into the block diagram of serial DACs shows that their input is serial but processing is done in parallel. There is a serial to parallel block. With this architecture you have one block converting serial data to parallel data which takes time. Whereas when you are using parallel input DACs you do not need this block. So, at same transfer rates the parallel input DAC is faster than the serial DAC.

The TeraDak Chameleon is trying to accomplish this by using 16 TDA1543 DACs in parallel. Since the TDA1543 is a serial DAC, by taking and processing 1 bit at a time for each DAC there should be faster and more reliable conversion at the output.

[Stagea]

Looking into the block diagram of serial DACs shows that their input is serial but processing is done in parallel. There is a serial to parallel block. With this architecture you have one block converting serial data to parallel data which takes time. Whereas when you are using parallel input DACs you do not need this block. So, at same transfer rates the parallel input DAC is faster than the serial DAC.

That's initial latency in a serial-feed parallel DAC. Even still, once the stream runs it will work at the same rate/speed. Transports and other devices prior to the DAC cause far more latency (at 4.608MHz, it takes 0.000005s to collect a 24-bit sample before it gets passed on to a parallel processing core). Even parallel input DACs often get that latency because they're usually parallel fed by a demux that is serially fed beforehand. In both cases, some form of data buffering is thus applied (whether inside the DAC packaging, or outside).

A true serial-processing DAC (and not a serial feed parallel one) will not have to convert serial to parallel before processing. Bitstream DACs will handle a pulse train feed without that conversion delay (aside from the internal latency of the device, and the preconversion to pulse train from the original feed --- if it's in a different format).

[shrek7]

the net suggests that m2tech should be placed between the digital source and dac for the digital source to output 24bit/192khz, but my dac already are capable of utilizing 24/96khz. will I still benefit from this?
will m2tech hiface be beneficial if i decide to add it to my system? my DAC is teradak chameleon, any point of view will be highly appreciated. thanks!

[Stagea]

the net suggests that m2tech should be placed between the digital source and dac for the digital source to output 24bit/192khz, but my dac already are capable of utilizing 24/96khz. will I still benefit from this?
will m2tech hiface be beneficial if i decide to add it to my system? my DAC is teradak chameleon, any point of view will be highly appreciated. thanks!

You won't be able to get 24/192, even if you add the m2tech hiFace. The reason is because your DAC is not capable of accepting a signal with a 192kHz sampling rate. This shouldn't really bother you, unless you're playing material beyond 24/96 (if so, you'd need a different DAC to make the most out of that).

Using this asynchronous SPDIF interface might reduce interface jitter. On the other hand, your Chameleon already reclocks the feed in its ASRC, which means that the actual impact would likely be further reduced.

[shrek7]

You won't be able to get 24/192, even if you add the m2tech hiFace. The reason is because your DAC is not capable of accepting a signal with a 192kHz sampling rate. This shouldn't really bother you, unless you're playing material beyond 24/96 (if so, you'd need a different DAC to make the most out of that).

Using this asynchronous SPDIF interface might reduce interface jitter. On the other hand, your Chameleon already reclocks the feed in its ASRC, which means that the actual impact would likely be further reduced.

so ibig sabihin sir eh,m2tech will make my system better, by further jitter reduction,tama po ba? its a good thing that you explained it well, because I was thinking that I will be able to decode 24/192khz using my dac via the help of m2tech. thanks sir! 

[Stagea]

so ibig sabihin sir eh,m2tech will make my system better, by further jitter reduction,tama po ba? its a good thing that you explained it well, because I was thinking that I will be able to decode 24/192khz using my dac via the help of m2tech. thanks sir! 

I think you misread my statement. It will likely be a relatively slight jitter reduction, because your DAC already has good jitter-rejection (since it's an upsampling DAC that runs its own clock). The asynchronous sample rate converter inside your Chameleon reclocks the feed while upsampling it to 24/96, before it gets fed to the DAC chips.

[rascal101]

For the TeraDak Chameleon its

(1) USB input accepts 24bit/96KHz and,
(2) SPDIF input has max supported freq at 96KHz

This is due to the limitations of the TENOR TE7022L USB receiver and Wolson Wm8805 SPDIF receiver. As already mentioned by Stagea due to these limitations, it cannot accept higher sampling rates.

However, the 16 paralleled Philips TDA1543 (16 bit) is hardwired for 16 bit non-oversampling. So, it is operating at 16bit/44.1KHz. So for a 24bit/96KHz input, it appears that the extra 8 bits are ignored by the TDA1543 - as it only supports 16 bits.

As such, the TeraDak Chameleon is actually a 16bit/44.1KHz DAC.

[shrek7]

For the TeraDak Chameleon its

(1) USB input accepts 24bit/96KHz and,
(2) SPDIF input has max supported freq at 96KHz

This is due to the limitations of the TENOR TE7022L USB receiver and Wolson Wm8805 SPDIF receiver. As already mentioned by Stagea due to these limitations, it cannot accept higher sampling rates.

However, the 16 paralleled Philips TDA1543 (16 bit) is hardwired for 16 bit non-oversampling. So, it is operating at 16bit/44.1KHz. So for a 24bit/96KHz input, it appears that the extra 8 bits are ignored by the TDA1543 - as it only supports 16 bits.

As such, the TeraDak Chameleon is actually a 16bit/44.1KHz DAC.

ganun? mukhang may upsampling board yta sya sir to support 24/96 before feeding it to the dac?

[Stagea]

ganun? mukhang may upsampling board yta sya sir to support 24/96 before feeding it to the dac?

Rascal is correct. It uses 16-bit depth chips, and the design likely just ignores the less significant bits from the 24/96 ASRC output. Therefore, the device will take 24-bit inputs but the actual digital to analogue conversion only happens on the 16 most significant bits.

I think they're feeding the TDA1543 at 96kHz though (instead of 44.1kHz), giving the DAC a max possible resolution of 16/96 (granted that you have the software to do this).

[shrek7]

nice at least di ko na kailangan ng m2tech! hehehe! muntik na ako makulam ah! thanks for the advice sirs!

[JoeyGS]

To make our hobby enjoyable, and since your laptop is portable, why not bring it along with your dac and try to test the M2Tech Hiface at Architectural Audio.  I would be nice to find out thru actual test if it will still greatly improve the SQ. Anyway the test will only cost you your time and some transportation cost.

Good luck......and if you eventually test it give us your feedback

nice at least di ko na kailangan ng m2tech! hehehe! muntik na ako makulam ah! thanks for the advice sirs!

[shrek7]

I really would like to do that but, I'm not from manila, is there someone who supplies m2tech here in cebu? better ask sir ferdie first. thanks!!! 

thanks for your suggestion!!! much appreciated! 

[niceNslow]

waaa... nalito ako lalo nung pumunta ako ng page 2

ang gusto ko lang ay gumanda tunog ng macbook ko, ano ba beginners gear para sa akin

[JoeyGS]

If you have a macbook, you can use Amarra as your player (very good reviews).  Then,  you can use a good external DAC to process the digital signal from your macbook and output the analogue signal to go into your amplifiers. As stated above, we use a USB to SPDIF converter (e.g. Hiface or Halide) in between the Macbook and the external DAC and have had excellent results in improving the sound.  Of course, with all this components connected together, high quality wires like Interconnects, USB cables and Digital Coaxials are used (not necessarily expensive ones).

waaa... nalito ako lalo nung pumunta ako ng page 2

ang gusto ko lang ay gumanda tunog ng macbook ko, ano ba beginners gear para sa akin

[jcsantamarina]

If you have a macbook, you can use Amarra as your player (very good reviews).  Then,  you can use a good external DAC to process the digital signal from your macbook and output the analogue signal to go into your amplifiers. As stated above, we use a USB to SPDIF converter (e.g. Hiface or Halide) in between the Macbook and the external DAC and have had excellent results in improving the sound.  Of course, with all this components connected together, high quality wires like Interconnects, USB cables and Digital Coaxials are used (not necessarily expensive ones).

Hey bro! Are you using Amarra right now? I downloaded the trial version. I'm a bit confused on how it works. It detects my USB based DAC but what's the best way to play the music? Link with iTunes or just load the files manually and use Amarra as an independent player? It's a bit expensive kaya I wanted to test it out and feel the "boom" before I buy.

[KEN]

guys anyone knows how much M2techhiface locally...i'm almost on the same situation.

salamat