Topic: Metrum Acoustics Quad Measurements (NOS Mini DAC) (Read 12357 times)

Hands · « **Reply #40 on:** December 28, 2013, 05:34:06 PM »

Same tests as above but with the JKSPDIF, 24/96. Also re-did the RMAA test in DirectSound mode. I'll just post the numerical results, because the graphs look about the same as you've seen already. First JTest is straight playback, second is upsampled.

Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB | +0.00, -0.59 | Good
Noise level, dB (A) | -102.5 | Excellent
Dynamic range, dB (A) | 102.9 | Excellent
THD, % | 0.036 | Good
THD + Noise, dB (A) | -66.9 | Average
IMD + Noise, % | 0.043 | Good
Stereo crosstalk, dB | -97.8 | Excellent
IMD at 10 kHz, % | 0.166 | Average
General performance | Good

Hands · « **Reply #41 on:** December 28, 2013, 05:38:37 PM »

XXHighEnd jitter tests for the lulz. Compare to JRMC. I have not yet tried XXHE through the Auzen out on my desktop. File is 24/48, software and hardware settings at 24/96.

1. XXHE - From what I can tell, upsampling and all those fancy related options disabled. It's hard to tell what's going on with this UI.
2. XXHE Linear Interpolation upsampling
3. XXHE Arc Prediction upsampling - According to the developer, this should be perfect for NOS DACs...
4. XXHE Anti-Image upsampling

Hands · « **Reply #42 on:** December 28, 2013, 05:44:11 PM »

These are experimental and likely useless REW measurements.

As ultrabike mentioned in the SB1240 measurement thread, it's questionable whether these measurements have any sort of usefulness when it comes to DAC measurements. I can't say I know how to read some of these (DAC or not) or if any information in them is valuable, but I can say that the measurements are producing different results among my DACs. I'll post them just in case someone thinks there's good info to be found in these, but they're likely not too helpful. I apologize that these are not always scaled and matched across my other DACs, or if I'm missing a measurement.

1. FR and Phase
2. Harmonic Distortion - not aligned on the graph properly, but you can see basic % values at the bottom
3. Impulse Response
4. Filtered IR
5. Group Delay
6. Waterfall
7. Spectrogram

Marvey · « **Reply #43 on:** December 28, 2013, 05:54:28 PM »

Quote from: xnor on December 07, 2013, 04:51:02 PM

The irony is, if you associate old D/A converter performance with "digital sound" or "digitis", then non-oversampling DACs will give you exactly that.

Look at this:

The green dots are the samples. The blue sine is the input and output when correctly reconstructed.
Purple shows how non-oversampling DACs do it. Red is linear interpolation. Some audio editors display waveforms incorrectly that way.

That is a massive misunderstanding of how proper anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters work. Reconstructing the signal (in this case, analog frequency being ~ 0.43 sampling rate) is NOT a matter of connecting the dots (linear interpolation) - even with no oversampling.

Please stop making stuff up.

Marvey · « **Reply #44 on:** December 28, 2013, 06:05:20 PM »

Quote from: hans030390 on December 28, 2013, 05:44:11 PM

These are experimental and likely useless REW measurements.

Now you understand why I don't bother with DAC measurements. Some people freak out and see a DAC with -3db at 20kHz and scream "what a POS" when in fact that DAC sounds better than this:

Which probably measurements perfectly in FR. There way too much which can't be measured with two or three steady statement measurements. DACs are not like headphones where the errors are gross.

Hands · « **Reply #45 on:** December 28, 2013, 06:20:14 PM »

Haha, I don't mind. I have a lot of fun doing measurements like this simply for the sake of science, knowledge, information, etc. If it gets someone riled up, that's their problem. I have my tastes (these posts are not indicative of my tastes necessarily), and I understand my tastes don't always fall within the bounds of excellence from a scientific, objective perspective.

The NOS DAC concept intrigued me enough to try one, hence the Metrum purchase. I wanted to start somewhere decent. I also noticed a lack of easily accessible or robust measurements for NOS DACs and figured I could help fill some of those gaps. And now I'm just interested in measuring anything I can!

ultrabike · « **Reply #46 on:** December 28, 2013, 06:35:15 PM »

I don't think the REW measurements are useless. Specially if they yield consistent different results among DACS. But frequency response you already get with ARTA and RMAA. THD and IR you can also get with ARTA. However, the calibration process for ARTA and REW is different. In the end, if properly calibrated and w same drivers, both programs should yield similar results.

I think is a good idea to show results among the different SW packages, particularly if the same measurement yields different results, and/or if different drivers and modes were used perhaps due to card compatibility or whatever other reason. It's also a sanity check.

Group Delay sort of measures latency.

Waterfall and Spectrogram are proly similar to CSD and should be pretty "fast" for DACS relative to headphones. Still useful tho.

As far as the S/H operation, I also feel that the reconstruction filter should produce a decent tone. I think the difference between the impulsive dots and stair wave approximation is out of band images.

And really nice job Hanns. I can say for myself that I think I have learned a lot when doing my own measurements and is always fun to correlate what I get w my impressions and some ol stuff I learned.

Hands · « **Reply #47 on:** December 29, 2013, 04:51:26 AM »

The Metrum does have that particular...hump or ridge demonstrated in the waterfall and spectrogram plots. It starts at the high frequencies and moves down to the lower frequencies over time. The NOS1704 and SB1240 did not exhibit this. I only ran these tests once, so I'd have to see if I can repeat this. If I can, I'd be interested to know what's causing that.

Anaxilus · « **Reply #48 on:** January 24, 2014, 02:14:37 AM »

Thought I'd post my subjective Metrum Quad impressions w/ Octave mk1 PS.

Sounds smooth and plasticky. Rounded timbre. All songs have the same timbre coloration so it's harder to tell how well they were mastered and each instrument sounds more similar next to the other. Kind of a Super Shure 500/530 plus signature. Very relaxing but fake. No sibilants or digital hash. Sound seems compressed in SS w/ instruments superimposing over others, very 2D and small L/R blob signature. Sounds a bit slow, smeared and muddled in the upper mids. Imaging and resolution are not the best. Vocals do have that liquid seduction which is enticing. Makes strings sound almost like an unmodded Abyss, incoherent. Guitar and drums sound plastic for sure. Background is not black and as clear as it could be.

Switching back, the Uber BiFrost via uber USB is more clear, more black, more resolving, more spacious and more accurate sounding.

Hands · « **Reply #49 on:** January 24, 2014, 11:34:45 AM »

...Wait, is this the part where I get upset or something because I like the Quad?

Thanks for the comments!

I hope to get my hands on the Bifrost or Gungir soon so I can compare, but I quickly found myself fond of the Metrum's relaxed, smooth sound. The Hex steps it up a notch and is noticeably less laid-back, but it still shares those traits I like. I'm doubting it'd make enough of a difference for your tastes. The fact that you and Marv both said vocals are good or seducing on it is particularly interesting, because vocal abilities is one of my musical strengths. That wasn't something I had really considered before you guys mentioned it, but I'm wondering if that might have something to do with why I like its sound? It might just be due to it slightly taking the edge off music, like metal, that can otherwise fatigue me quickly and easily.

Did you listen to this on Marv's setup? Just curious to know the chain behind it all if that wasn't what you used, and, in particular, I'm curious if there was an appreciable difference between software and upsampling methods if you happened to experiment with that. Genuinely curious because I like to experiment with it and like to see what others find. I'm not trying to imply anything one way or the other about your setup or your impressions.

Author Topic: Metrum Acoustics Quad Measurements (NOS Mini DAC) (Read 12357 times)

Hands

Additional and Revised Metrum Quad Measurements - JKSPDIF

Hands

For The Lulz - XXHighEnd Jitter Test - JTest 24/48 File

Hands

Metrum Quad DAC - Experimental and Potentially Useless REW Measurements

Marvey

Re: Metrum Acoustics Quad Measurements (NOS Mini DAC) - UPDATED 12/7 w/ new tests

Marvey

Re: Metrum Acoustics Quad Measurements (NOS Mini DAC) - UPDATED 12/7 w/ new tests

Hands

Re: Metrum Acoustics Quad Measurements (NOS Mini DAC) - UPDATED 12/7 w/ new tests

ultrabike

Re: Metrum Acoustics Quad Measurements (NOS Mini DAC) - UPDATED 12/7 w/ new tests

Hands

Re: Metrum Acoustics Quad Measurements (NOS Mini DAC) - UPDATED 12/7 w/ new tests

Anaxilus

Re: Metrum Acoustics Quad Measurements (NOS Mini DAC) - UPDATED 12/7 w/ new tests

Hands

This is the subject line for my post. I hope you like it.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Author Topic: Metrum Acoustics Quad Measurements (NOS Mini DAC) (Read 12357 times)