I hope you all are enjoying this video, as much as you enjoy your audio system. Feel free to leave a like, subscribe to my channel, comment your thoughts, share this video with your audiophile friends, or even become a channel member!
@@GoldFus1on OOps! You can try to step down to their EF500 if you wanna go super budget and still good enough. The fun thing with HE1000se is that it doesn't need that much juice and it's not super picky like other high-end planars, even from HiFiMan.
I've had the Enyo 15th for some time now and thought it sounded great with my WiiM Pro Plus acting as a streamer only. I recently got rid of the Pro Plus and replaced it with the Denafrips Arce streamer connected to the Enyo with a short I2s cable - wow. The pairing of the Arce streamer with the Enyo 15th is so good!! I use Roon to send Qobuz files to the Arce.
Great to hear your experiences! I think that the I2S connection did most of the good stuff for you between the Arce & Enyo 15th. By the way, are you using it in a stereo setup or for headphone listening?
@@TheAudioStuff I'm using it in a 2-channel setup through Zu Audio DW6 speakers. Unfortunately, my integrated amp takes kind of a purist approach and has no headphone output. (Musical Fidelity M2si)
@@TheAudioStuff I haven't. If they made a simple integrated I might though. Honestly, I'm really impressed with the Musical Fidelity M2si for the money.
Great review! I too have the Enyo 15th. Sounds amazing with the Topping A90 Discrete and HE 1000 Stealth. Was going to get the Ares 15th, but I also wanted to pair it with the Iris 12th via I2S, so I decided on the latter with the Enyo 15th. Why spend more when the Ares and it's upgraded clock crystals, minus the remote sensor the only upgrade over the Enyo 15th, when they will just get bypassed and use the Iris anyway? Plus this way I can use AES out to my Topping D90 III Discrete at the same time.
For me yes, I prefer a very clean, fast and detailed sound with tight bass 👍🏻 With a good double AKM design you also can enjoy a nice soundstage and silky mids/highs 😊
@@TheAudioStuff An ´older´Topping D70s, with double AK4497 from just before the AKM fire. For me (and I think many others) the best dac Topping ever made 😊
As a terminator plus owner I do wish they would move away from the confusing LED interface to a screen with proper menus. Its a pain having to reach for a manual whenever you want to change the configuration of the unit.
Would you prefer to have a full on LCD display just for that? I'm rather a fan of simplicity, especially when you don't mess with a DAC's settings every day.
@@TheAudioStuffHaving owned the T Plus for a number of years and had issues requiring multiple reconfiguration as part of fault finding in my system, it would have been so much easier with a screen. I2S configuration and firmware upgrades are a pain in the butt without one. Also it's nice to be able to see bitrate etc. without having to work it out.
That's right - the Enyo 15th should be the same as Ares 12th-1. Anyway Ares 15th is a step above Enyo 15th. I'll likely get a unit some time in the future to compare things further. I'm already working on a video about another piece of Denafrips gear!
Great review! I share your dislike of insanely bright blue LEDs. I will never understand why the entire industry embraced them. The red LEDs of the past were far less obnoxious. There's a reason for blue light filters.... But I found a great and inexpensive solution. The product is Lightdims. They are little precut pieces of self adhesive plastic film, available in both black and silver, in several levels of transparency from 50% reduction to fully opaque. They really solved a problem for me, an Exposure 2010 integrated amp in my bedroom with the brightest blue LEDs that I've ever seen. Now I can sleep in darkness.
That Exposure amp I mentioned and an older 1st generation Monster Cable power conditioner. And they really don't look bad. I put the opaque silver ones on the Exposure in the bedroom, and 70% ones on the conditioner. They are removable, and really aren't all that ugly. It's as if someone took a sheet of the film and cut perfect circles with a hole punch. There are many other shapes. There are competing brands as well, at least here in the US.
Oh, I love Exposure amps! I've been trying out the 3510 integrated not a long time ago - very "soft-dynamic" sound with a nice top-end, good imaging and an elastic sound stage. Why did you go for a Monster Cable conditioner by the way?
One remark - delta sigma dacs are also offering Nos (filterless) mode, even more true than denafrips models which are often not true nos. But such mode shouldn't be used in in both cases, both ds and r2r are generating ultrasonic artefacts. In theory DS is generating more due to noise shaping but still they are present in both topologies, no real difference. And generated wave is simply not correct without reconstruction filter. (Which is not related with oversampling - reconstruction filter and oversampling are different things, naming convention is wrong here).
Hmm, I never came across a delta-sigma DAC with a NOS mode. Isn't this upsampling necessary for them to function? I know that most Denafrips DACs are not "true" NOS, rather linear interpolation - but it gets the job done somewhat similarly. Why'd we worry about ultrasonic artifacts though? We ain't bats after all! haha
Probably you used or saw them many times, but nos mode is often hidden under misleading name :) for example many toppings have full Nos mode, even cheapest ones from e30 series. Nos mode is called super slow filter, no5 if I remember correctly - and this name is misleading. Yes, they are super slow - but exactly because this is full filterless true nos. Upsampling / oversampling is never necessary, even without reconstruction filter nos ds dac is working normally, only with "super slow" highs due to to lack of reconstructed data in high part of spectrum - this part of waveform is very distorted. In theory, removing ultrasonic frequencies should be necessary due to lot of artificially created noise shaping artefacts. But in practice, I do not see ultrasonic difference in any fft spectrum. For both simply there is a lot of ultrasonic response. In theory ultrasonic generated in huge amount (due to noise shaping) may have potential to destroy speakers twitters not prepared for such frequencies, and even other audio components. Many peoples are afraid of that, but I never saw such real example, probably modern gear is somewhat secured, besides, modern class D amps are also generating a lot of ultrasonic artefacts themselfs due to inherent class D Keying so.. Ultrasonic may also introduce artefacts within lower part of spectrum which may be possible to hear. Also may have huge impact on animals. But filter should be used simply to proper reconstruct high frequencies within audio spectrum. Without filters they are very distorted (without proper amplitude). Exactly the same way in case of r2r and ds - no any difference here. This follows directly from Niquist and nature of pcm, not from dac topology. Quality Difference between r2r and ds lies in fact that r2r is pcm native direct "resolving" method, kind of analog, straight and perfect in time domain. When ds which is in fact conversion to dsd, require many conversion steps realized by feedback loops, noise shaping and other operations - and they are distorted in time domain, not direct, not perfect. This can not be directly measured, so no any charts can show anything of that, but this create huge difference in practice. Filters on both Outputs can be the same - slow or fast, or nos - filterless. Filters are not topology dependent in any way, but if waveform is expected to be properly generated, some filter always should be used. Mostly linear slow should be best.
Even some SMSL DACs that I have at the moment can be set to super slow-rolloff or similar. I think that the thing with blowing speakers due to supersonic noise is very irrelevant. I've also never seen that happening. I'd assume this noise is fairly low-level too. Luckily I'm a Class A or A/B guy for the most part! haha I seem confused though as for the difference between oversampling and high-frequency filtering, because of your comment. Oversampling refers to taking a given sample rate and increasing it multiple times by a DAC, to easier reconstruct a signal. NOS means that a DAC does not do that, and it takes the signal as it is. Filtering on the other hand is... just what it seems to be. Analog high-frequency filters can be in a form of a capacitor & a resistor to filter out highs and leave the lows intact.
Szum pochodzący z noise shapingu teorytycznie powinien mieć duże natężenie, ale mi samemu w pomiarach to nie wychodzi. Nazewnictwo filtrów jest namieszane i ktoś kiedyś gdzieś błędnie połączył temat oversamplingu z filtrami, co gorsza łącząc je pod jednym ustawieniem. W praktyce to są dwie zupełnie różne rzeczy. I dochodzi do paradoksów gdzie Dace w trybie Nos co z nazwy oznacza non oversampling, mają wyłączony filtr dolnoprzepustowy a dalej stosują oversampling. Tak robi np denafrips. Całe pojęcie Nos nie ma tam sensu. Te tryby przede wszystkim służą wyłączeniu filtra. Oba tematy de facto powinny mieć osobne przełączniki. Oversampling jako taki głównie ma na celu obniżenie poziomu szumu kwantyzacji. Nie jest w żaden sposób potrzebny w celu rekonstrukcji fali i nie ma na nią wpływu. Tak naprawdę obecność lub nie oversamplingu nie ma de facto żadnego znaczenia i może dla tego nie daje się im osobnego przełącznika - na nic realnego on nie wpływa. Fala jest w całości rekonstruowana właśnie filtrem dolnoprzepustowym i jego obecność lub brak ma wpływ zasadniczy. Bez filtra, fala jest nie prawidłowo odtworzona, przede wszystkim w zakresie wysokich tonów, gdzie brakuje danych i cała amplituda wyższego spektrum się "zapada". A cała reszta spektrum jest poszarpana schodkowaniem (można powiedzieć że ma stopnie kwantyzacji, jedynie bez filtra zależne od samplingu - ten po użyciu filtra nie ma żadnego znaczenia). Dlatego właśnie filtr Nos nazywa się też filtrem super slow, co w sumie ma więcej sensu niż nazwa Nos. Filtr natomiast poprzez ograniczenie pasma, odtwarza falę w sposób doskonały (i przebiegiem i amplitudą sinusa) w całym zakresie. Dlatego filtr dolnoprzepustowy nazywa się filtrem rekonstrukcyjnym. Jako że "odtwarza" on falę, całej branży temat pomylił się z oversamplingiem. A związku tu nie ma. Obecność filtra jest kluczowa. Oversampling jest bez znaczenia. A jak filtr rekonstruuje? Poprzez ograniczenie pasma sprawia że sinus może przebiegać tylko jedną, prostą drogą i w jeden sposób, inna ścieżka jest nie możliwa. Nie możliwe jest schodkowanie, stopnie kwantyzacji, tak jak nie możliwy jest sygnał kwadratowy. Kwadrat to suma sinusów, może istnieć tylko w trybie Nos. Ograniczenie pasma odcina większość sinusów składowych, pozostawiając uproszczony przebieg typu "ringing". Fala po prostu nie może już biec innymi ścieżkami, możliwe kształty są ograniczone. W praktyce, odtworzenie fali źródłowej staje się pełne, bo nie możliwy jest inny przebieg niż ten ograniczony i tym samym oryginalny. Wszystko to wynika wprost z Niquista. Przy okazji wynika z tego że cały Hi res to zbędny wałek. Kwantyzacja nie istnieje za filtrem. Zastosowanie wyższego próbkowania w odsłuchu miało kiedyś tylko jeden cel - ułatwienie budowy filtrów analogowych poprzez przesunięcie filtra w rejon gdzie można było użyć łagodniejszego zbocza (słow), jako że budowa filtrów ostrych (fast) była problematyczna. Zastosowanie przy filtrach cyfrowych nie istnieje.
Nowhere near the same level. Ares is very cheap in price quality relation. And, k11 is not usable with ps from box. Must be replaced, so is not that cheap.
Compared to other R2R DACs it is VERY cheap. I'd not consider the K11 to be at the same level, but I'll likely get a unit in for a review very soon to test it out.
Physics proved three feet are the only stable configuration, it cannot get wobbly.....but people have a hard time with this. Now, it is a small surface and you place it on very flat surface, it should be no problem, but in absolute term you should have less vibrations with three feet.
It doesn't get "wobbly" by itself. When you put some pressure on a unit with 3 feet, it can rock to one side. But your point with less vibrations makes sense. Is it because of a lower contact area?
@@TheAudioStuff You can put as much weight as you want on a three feet unit, it will never rock one side unless it is on two feet only....or you place a lot of weight precisely in one corner where there is no foot....but this is just common sens. With four feet you never have the same pressure on each, it is just impossible ; though you get vibrations. If you place a table in your garden, where the surface isn't perfectly plane, it get wobbly. Take a three feet table, it will never happen. OK, as I said earlier, here your surface IS perfectly flat, you have little chance to get problem, but theory of physic tells you that three feet avoid any vibration's problem with certainty.
R2R DACs have a VERY different sound, filled with midrange warmth and other characteristic. I also have the ZD3 on hand, I'll get to a video about it soon. What's your system like at the moment?
@@TheAudioStuff No, but I don't hear it from $200 DS DACs either, because D/A conversion has been a solved problem for years now. This Denafrips will sound exactly the same as a DS DAC, both of them will have distortion and noise at a level below the practical limit of human hearing and near the physical limit of human hearing. It's all just basic science.
@@trekkis True, DS DACs will have less of those issues. So most likely the DS DAC will sound better. Also remember that R2R principles work best as the start and end of the frequency range, but worst in the middle. Human hearing is more sensitive in that range though, so again you are better off with a DS DAC. Its all basic science and can be easily proven using the right equipment.
Beat,what does that even mean beat, all dacs have a sound signature and all dacs will act differently with different electronics and transmission lines and sources please get educated in audio
@@philipw7058 Hi! Thanks for the question. I understand your concern. Here the word “beat” refers to superior technical performance. I’m aware that components have a distinct sound signature, which I explained in depth in this video.
@@TheAudioStuff Nie przejmuj się moim komentarzem. Każdy ma jakiś akcent :) Jak na Amerykanina za bardzo się starasz wymiawiać poprawnie każdy dźwięk. A przez to, że nie spotkałem w twojej wymowie żadnego obcego mi dźwięku to uznałem, że jesteś - jak ja.
I hope you all are enjoying this video, as much as you enjoy your audio system. Feel free to leave a like, subscribe to my channel, comment your thoughts, share this video with your audiophile friends, or even become a channel member!
i like seeing how you get more and more gear in the background - looks very professional and engaging to look at
I love that part too! You'll see even more in my next video
amazing how your channel grows, I wish you a merry christmas friend
Happy holidays!
I was on the lookout for a DAC in more or less this price range, you've pushed me over the edge to get the enyo :)
That's truly fantastic.
You just got a new subscriber, thanks for your work
Awesome, thank you!
I saw that you had a hermes ddc, planning to make a video about it?
Yes! Already working on it. Hint: it's good.
great video buddy!
Thanks for the visit
Background music bit too loud (watching on phone)
I know, I noticed that after publishing. Thanks for bringing that up, I'll make sure it's perfect in the future videos.
What’s the dad/amp combo you would recommend for he1000 se? Budget and endgame setup
Do you need an all-in-one device for that, or can we go for separates?
@@TheAudioStuff all in one ideally
Hmm, how about HiFiMan's SERENADE?
@@TheAudioStuff thats too high of a budget lol
@@GoldFus1on OOps! You can try to step down to their EF500 if you wanna go super budget and still good enough. The fun thing with HE1000se is that it doesn't need that much juice and it's not super picky like other high-end planars, even from HiFiMan.
do you think it offers a better, more natural midrange than the raw mda1 which you reviewed not long ago?
MDA1 offers more midrange presence, while Enyo 15th offers more natural midrange.
I've had the Enyo 15th for some time now and thought it sounded great with my WiiM Pro Plus acting as a streamer only. I recently got rid of the Pro Plus and replaced it with the Denafrips Arce streamer connected to the Enyo with a short I2s cable - wow. The pairing of the Arce streamer with the Enyo 15th is so good!! I use Roon to send Qobuz files to the Arce.
Great to hear your experiences! I think that the I2S connection did most of the good stuff for you between the Arce & Enyo 15th. By the way, are you using it in a stereo setup or for headphone listening?
@@TheAudioStuff I'm using it in a 2-channel setup through Zu Audio DW6 speakers. Unfortunately, my integrated amp takes kind of a purist approach and has no headphone output. (Musical Fidelity M2si)
Okay, that's fun! Have you considered any Denafrips AMPs btw?
@@TheAudioStuff I haven't. If they made a simple integrated I might though. Honestly, I'm really impressed with the Musical Fidelity M2si for the money.
Why are you into integrated amps so much? I found separate pre/power constructions more fun.
How does it compare to the older ares DAC?
It should be on pair with the Ares 12th-1
Great review! I too have the Enyo 15th. Sounds amazing with the Topping A90 Discrete and HE 1000 Stealth. Was going to get the Ares 15th, but I also wanted to pair it with the Iris 12th via I2S, so I decided on the latter with the Enyo 15th. Why spend more when the Ares and it's upgraded clock crystals, minus the remote sensor the only upgrade over the Enyo 15th, when they will just get bypassed and use the Iris anyway? Plus this way I can use AES out to my Topping D90 III Discrete at the same time.
damn, it's a nice piece of gear, and it's Christmas time... should I get myself that unit as a gift? hmmm
Get it! haha
Is there any point in getting delta sigma converters still?
For measurements, or if you're looking for a particular sound.
For me yes, I prefer a very clean, fast and detailed sound with tight bass 👍🏻 With a good double AKM design you also can enjoy a nice soundstage and silky mids/highs 😊
Oh nice! Which specific AKM DAC do you have?
@@TheAudioStuff An ´older´Topping D70s, with double AK4497 from just before the AKM fire. For me (and I think many others) the best dac Topping ever made 😊
That's nice! What's up with the AKM fire though?
My guy has the same voice than Viktor from Arcane. Embrace the glorious R2R revolution!
Just kidding, great review!
Hahaha, thanks a lot!
As a terminator plus owner I do wish they would move away from the confusing LED interface to a screen with proper menus. Its a pain having to reach for a manual whenever you want to change the configuration of the unit.
Would you prefer to have a full on LCD display just for that? I'm rather a fan of simplicity, especially when you don't mess with a DAC's settings every day.
@@TheAudioStuffHaving owned the T Plus for a number of years and had issues requiring multiple reconfiguration as part of fault finding in my system, it would have been so much easier with a screen. I2S configuration and firmware upgrades are a pain in the butt without one.
Also it's nice to be able to see bitrate etc. without having to work it out.
Oh, I see. How do the firmware upgrades work though? I'm very curious, cause so far I've had the latest units, so I couldn't even try out updating it.
How it compares to ares 15th?
My understanding is that the Enyo 15th is basically the same as the Ares 12th-1 (according to Denafrips)
That's right - the Enyo 15th should be the same as Ares 12th-1. Anyway Ares 15th is a step above Enyo 15th. I'll likely get a unit some time in the future to compare things further. I'm already working on a video about another piece of Denafrips gear!
Great review!
I share your dislike of insanely bright blue LEDs. I will never understand why the entire industry embraced them. The red LEDs of the past were far less obnoxious. There's a reason for blue light filters....
But I found a great and inexpensive solution. The product is Lightdims. They are little precut pieces of self adhesive plastic film, available in both black and silver, in several levels of transparency from 50% reduction to fully opaque. They really solved a problem for me, an Exposure 2010 integrated amp in my bedroom with the brightest blue LEDs that I've ever seen. Now I can sleep in darkness.
Thanks!
That's one solution of this problem, but then it looks rather ugly from outside.
What device have you had to do this for?
That Exposure amp I mentioned and an older 1st generation Monster Cable power conditioner.
And they really don't look bad. I put the opaque silver ones on the Exposure in the bedroom, and 70% ones on the conditioner.
They are removable, and really aren't all that ugly. It's as if someone took a sheet of the film and cut perfect circles with a hole punch. There are many other shapes.
There are competing brands as well, at least here in the US.
Oh, I love Exposure amps! I've been trying out the 3510 integrated not a long time ago - very "soft-dynamic" sound with a nice top-end, good imaging and an elastic sound stage.
Why did you go for a Monster Cable conditioner by the way?
Happy Christmas Boxing 🥊 day .
I run the Denafrips Ares 12-1 DAC …and I’m very happy 😊
Happy holidays!
Technically speaking your DAC is identical to the Enyo 15th.
One remark - delta sigma dacs are also offering Nos (filterless) mode, even more true than denafrips models which are often not true nos. But such mode shouldn't be used in in both cases, both ds and r2r are generating ultrasonic artefacts. In theory DS is generating more due to noise shaping but still they are present in both topologies, no real difference. And generated wave is simply not correct without reconstruction filter. (Which is not related with oversampling - reconstruction filter and oversampling are different things, naming convention is wrong here).
Hmm, I never came across a delta-sigma DAC with a NOS mode. Isn't this upsampling necessary for them to function?
I know that most Denafrips DACs are not "true" NOS, rather linear interpolation - but it gets the job done somewhat similarly.
Why'd we worry about ultrasonic artifacts though? We ain't bats after all! haha
Probably you used or saw them many times, but nos mode is often hidden under misleading name :) for example many toppings have full Nos mode, even cheapest ones from e30 series. Nos mode is called super slow filter, no5 if I remember correctly - and this name is misleading. Yes, they are super slow - but exactly because this is full filterless true nos. Upsampling / oversampling is never necessary, even without reconstruction filter nos ds dac is working normally, only with "super slow" highs due to to lack of reconstructed data in high part of spectrum - this part of waveform is very distorted.
In theory, removing ultrasonic frequencies should be necessary due to lot of artificially created noise shaping artefacts. But in practice, I do not see ultrasonic difference in any fft spectrum. For both simply there is a lot of ultrasonic response. In theory ultrasonic generated in huge amount (due to noise shaping) may have potential to destroy speakers twitters not prepared for such frequencies, and even other audio components. Many peoples are afraid of that, but I never saw such real example, probably modern gear is somewhat secured, besides, modern class D amps are also generating a lot of ultrasonic artefacts themselfs due to inherent class D Keying so.. Ultrasonic may also introduce artefacts within lower part of spectrum which may be possible to hear. Also may have huge impact on animals.
But filter should be used simply to proper reconstruct high frequencies within audio spectrum. Without filters they are very distorted (without proper amplitude). Exactly the same way in case of r2r and ds - no any difference here. This follows directly from Niquist and nature of pcm, not from dac topology.
Quality Difference between r2r and ds lies in fact that r2r is pcm native direct "resolving" method, kind of analog, straight and perfect in time domain. When ds which is in fact conversion to dsd, require many conversion steps realized by feedback loops, noise shaping and other operations - and they are distorted in time domain, not direct, not perfect. This can not be directly measured, so no any charts can show anything of that, but this create huge difference in practice.
Filters on both Outputs can be the same - slow or fast, or nos - filterless. Filters are not topology dependent in any way, but if waveform is expected to be properly generated, some filter always should be used. Mostly linear slow should be best.
Even some SMSL DACs that I have at the moment can be set to super slow-rolloff or similar.
I think that the thing with blowing speakers due to supersonic noise is very irrelevant. I've also never seen that happening. I'd assume this noise is fairly low-level too.
Luckily I'm a Class A or A/B guy for the most part! haha
I seem confused though as for the difference between oversampling and high-frequency filtering, because of your comment. Oversampling refers to taking a given sample rate and increasing it multiple times by a DAC, to easier reconstruct a signal. NOS means that a DAC does not do that, and it takes the signal as it is.
Filtering on the other hand is... just what it seems to be. Analog high-frequency filters can be in a form of a capacitor & a resistor to filter out highs and leave the lows intact.
Szum pochodzący z noise shapingu teorytycznie powinien mieć duże natężenie, ale mi samemu w pomiarach to nie wychodzi.
Nazewnictwo filtrów jest namieszane i ktoś kiedyś gdzieś błędnie połączył temat oversamplingu z filtrami, co gorsza łącząc je pod jednym ustawieniem. W praktyce to są dwie zupełnie różne rzeczy. I dochodzi do paradoksów gdzie Dace w trybie Nos co z nazwy oznacza non oversampling, mają wyłączony filtr dolnoprzepustowy a dalej stosują oversampling. Tak robi np denafrips. Całe pojęcie Nos nie ma tam sensu. Te tryby przede wszystkim służą wyłączeniu filtra. Oba tematy de facto powinny mieć osobne przełączniki.
Oversampling jako taki głównie ma na celu obniżenie poziomu szumu kwantyzacji. Nie jest w żaden sposób potrzebny w celu rekonstrukcji fali i nie ma na nią wpływu. Tak naprawdę obecność lub nie oversamplingu nie ma de facto żadnego znaczenia i może dla tego nie daje się im osobnego przełącznika - na nic realnego on nie wpływa.
Fala jest w całości rekonstruowana właśnie filtrem dolnoprzepustowym i jego obecność lub brak ma wpływ zasadniczy. Bez filtra, fala jest nie prawidłowo odtworzona, przede wszystkim w zakresie wysokich tonów, gdzie brakuje danych i cała amplituda wyższego spektrum się "zapada". A cała reszta spektrum jest poszarpana schodkowaniem (można powiedzieć że ma stopnie kwantyzacji, jedynie bez filtra zależne od samplingu - ten po użyciu filtra nie ma żadnego znaczenia). Dlatego właśnie filtr Nos nazywa się też filtrem super slow, co w sumie ma więcej sensu niż nazwa Nos. Filtr natomiast poprzez ograniczenie pasma, odtwarza falę w sposób doskonały (i przebiegiem i amplitudą sinusa) w całym zakresie. Dlatego filtr dolnoprzepustowy nazywa się filtrem rekonstrukcyjnym. Jako że "odtwarza" on falę, całej branży temat pomylił się z oversamplingiem. A związku tu nie ma.
Obecność filtra jest kluczowa. Oversampling jest bez znaczenia.
A jak filtr rekonstruuje? Poprzez ograniczenie pasma sprawia że sinus może przebiegać tylko jedną, prostą drogą i w jeden sposób, inna ścieżka jest nie możliwa. Nie możliwe jest schodkowanie, stopnie kwantyzacji, tak jak nie możliwy jest sygnał kwadratowy. Kwadrat to suma sinusów, może istnieć tylko w trybie Nos. Ograniczenie pasma odcina większość sinusów składowych, pozostawiając uproszczony przebieg typu "ringing". Fala po prostu nie może już biec innymi ścieżkami, możliwe kształty są ograniczone. W praktyce, odtworzenie fali źródłowej staje się pełne, bo nie możliwy jest inny przebieg niż ten ograniczony i tym samym oryginalny. Wszystko to wynika wprost z Niquista.
Przy okazji wynika z tego że cały Hi res to zbędny wałek. Kwantyzacja nie istnieje za filtrem. Zastosowanie wyższego próbkowania w odsłuchu miało kiedyś tylko jeden cel - ułatwienie budowy filtrów analogowych poprzez przesunięcie filtra w rejon gdzie można było użyć łagodniejszego zbocza (słow), jako że budowa filtrów ostrych (fast) była problematyczna. Zastosowanie przy filtrach cyfrowych nie istnieje.
LOL, the Fiio K11 is also an R2R DAC/Headphone amp that sells for 200 bucks. So Denafrips is not "cheap" at all.
Nowhere near the same level. Ares is very cheap in price quality relation.
And, k11 is not usable with ps from box. Must be replaced, so is not that cheap.
Compared to other R2R DACs it is VERY cheap. I'd not consider the K11 to be at the same level, but I'll likely get a unit in for a review very soon to test it out.
This is not a review. This is a commercial.
You appreciate the quality by saying that? I'm not sure!
@TheAudioStuff Because you only use superlatives and not a crital review as far as I can tell.
Oh, I just really liked the DAC - I wasn't paid or anything haha
Physics proved three feet are the only stable configuration, it cannot get wobbly.....but people have a hard time with this. Now, it is a small surface and you place it on very flat surface, it should be no problem, but in absolute term you should have less vibrations with three feet.
It doesn't get "wobbly" by itself. When you put some pressure on a unit with 3 feet, it can rock to one side. But your point with less vibrations makes sense. Is it because of a lower contact area?
@@TheAudioStuff You can put as much weight as you want on a three feet unit, it will never rock one side unless it is on two feet only....or you place a lot of weight precisely in one corner where there is no foot....but this is just common sens. With four feet you never have the same pressure on each, it is just impossible ; though you get vibrations. If you place a table in your garden, where the surface isn't perfectly plane, it get wobbly. Take a three feet table, it will never happen. OK, as I said earlier, here your surface IS perfectly flat, you have little chance to get problem, but theory of physic tells you that three feet avoid any vibration's problem with certainty.
The more money you pay Denefrips for their best DACs and you get three feet
You may know more than Denafrips about this
I will take 3 or 4 feet
Do you have any idea why you get 3 feet with their higher-end DACs?
Just get a Fosi ZD3 you couldn't pass a blind listening test between it and more expensive DACs anyway and you know you couldn't
R2R DACs have a VERY different sound, filled with midrange warmth and other characteristic. I also have the ZD3 on hand, I'll get to a video about it soon. What's your system like at the moment?
@TheAudioStuff
A $5 Hello kitty bluetooth speaker I found at the bus stop
Ehh…. A troll
@@TheAudioStuffI think that was apparent from his original post.
@@jeffreylehman1159 Well, I always want to assume the best in people - he could've been new to the hobby - that's what I thought.
No it cannot compete with $200 DS DACs, the Denafrips has too much distortion and noise to do so.
Youre confusing false parameters generated by noise shaping and feedback loop tricks, with real sound quality.
Can you hear any distortion or noise from the DAC? How are you doing it?
@@TheAudioStuff No, but I don't hear it from $200 DS DACs either, because D/A conversion has been a solved problem for years now. This Denafrips will sound exactly the same as a DS DAC, both of them will have distortion and noise at a level below the practical limit of human hearing and near the physical limit of human hearing. It's all just basic science.
@@trekkis True, DS DACs will have less of those issues. So most likely the DS DAC will sound better. Also remember that R2R principles work best as the start and end of the frequency range, but worst in the middle. Human hearing is more sensitive in that range though, so again you are better off with a DS DAC. Its all basic science and can be easily proven using the right equipment.
Exactly opposite. Least sentence can be used only by peoples with no any contact with science.
You background music it s so annoying!!!!!
So sorry, I didn't notice that in this video. In my new ones I'll make it better. Thanks for the reminder.
Beat,what does that even mean beat, all dacs have a sound signature and all dacs will act differently with different electronics and transmission lines and sources please get educated in audio
@@philipw7058 Hi! Thanks for the question. I understand your concern. Here the word “beat” refers to superior technical performance. I’m aware that components have a distinct sound signature, which I explained in depth in this video.
Are you Polish descent? Your accent dosn't sound American.
Yes, I'm Polish! Is there anything specific with my accent that gives it up? haha
@@TheAudioStuff Nie przejmuj się moim komentarzem. Każdy ma jakiś akcent :)
Jak na Amerykanina za bardzo się starasz wymiawiać poprawnie każdy dźwięk.
A przez to, że nie spotkałem w twojej wymowie żadnego obcego mi dźwięku to uznałem, że jesteś - jak ja.
Ja bym nie zauważył :P a to tym bardziej będzie trzeba obserwować kanał :)
Jasne, dzięki za info. Zawsze staram się nad tym pracować, teraz już wiem na czym dokładnie się skupić ;)