d6jg wrote:
> The UCA202 is a great value for money device.
Absolutely! But because it is cheap and has a cheap-looking plastic box,
it isn't "audiophile quality". :)
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will
Julf wrote:
> Absolutely! But because it is cheap and has a cheap-looking plastic box,
> it isn't "audiophile quality". :)
Well we can change that !
I can put it in a CNC'd case with an OTT analogue psu if you want, I'll
charge $4000, OK :)
*Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3, Squeezebox
d6jg wrote:
> Unfortunately it doesn't actually need the analogue power supply (OTT or
> otherwise) as its powered off the USB.
Ah, but that is just theory. Theory can't explain everything. Have you
actually *listened* to it yourself with an analog power supply? :)
"To try to judge the real
Excellent review of the UCA202 that I have just found
http://nwavguy.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/behringer-uca202-review.html
*Vortexbox LMS 7.8 music on QNAP TS419p via NFS* iThingys/iPeng/Tablets
*Living Room* - SB3 -> Onkyo TS606 - > Celestion Ditton F20s - Zone 2 ->
Sony TA FE 320 ->
Julf wrote:
> The hardware is capable of 32, 44.1 and 48 kHz. Perhaps the drivers for
> your OS limit it to 44.1, but I have not had any issues with 48 kHz
> under linux.
I have had a further look and you are correct. Apologies.
The UCA202 is a great value for money device. I use one to "rip"
d6jg wrote:
> Has it got a power socket? I thought not. Or do you mean coupling with a
> powered USB hub with a fancy supply? $4,500 in that case.
It doesn't need a power socket. Everybody knows that just having a
linear power supply in the same enclosure improves the sound. ;)
"To try to
Jeff07971 wrote:
> Well we can change that !
> I can put it in a CNC'd case with an OTT analogue psu if you want, I'll
> charge $4000, OK :)
Throw in a couple of bamboo fibre capacitors and a bit of silver wire,
and we have a killer! :)
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be
Jeff07971 wrote:
> Well we can change that !
> I can put it in a CNC'd case with an OTT analogue psu if you want, I'll
> charge $4000, OK :)
Unfortunately it doesn't actually need the analogue power supply (OTT or
otherwise) as its powered off the USB. A nice case and some
unnecessarily
Julf wrote:
> Ah, but that is just theory. Theory can't explain everything. Have you
> actually *listened* to it yourself with an analog power supply? :)
Has it got a power socket? I thought not. Or do you mean coupling with a
powered USB hub with a fancy supply? $4,500 in that case.
Julf wrote:
> Indeed. Many of the more advanced DACs have pretty good DSP capabilities
> these days, but the problem is that many of the high-end "designers"
> don't have the skill and capabilities to actually program them, so they
> prefer "just connect some exotic external components and put
d6jg wrote:
> Unfortunately it doesn't actually need the analogue power supply (OTT or
> otherwise) as its powered off the USB. A nice case and some
> unnecessarily expensive RCA & Optical cables in the box though and I
> think $4,000 would be very reasonable.
Oh No No NO !!!
You have to
Jeff07971 wrote:
> Oh No No NO !!!
>
> You have to galvanically isolate it and power the device itself from a
> linear psu !
>
> Otherwise you won't hear any difference !
I guess we better stop - somebody might think we are actually serious...
"To try to judge the real from the false will
Julf wrote:
> I guess we better stop - somebody might think we are actually serious...
:)
*Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3, Squeezebox Receiver, SqueezePlayer,
PiCorePlayer/RPi2/Hifiberry DAC+ x2,PiCorePlayer/RPi2/Hifiberry
DAC+Pro,Wandboard SOA
*Server:* Logitech Media Server Version: 7.9.0
d6jg wrote:
> Unfortunately it doesn't actually need the analogue power supply (OTT or
> otherwise) as its powered off the USB. A nice case and some
> unnecessarily expensive RCA & Optical cables in the box though and I
> think $4,000 would be very reasonable.
Wonder if someone ever going to
Julf wrote:
> And as I keep saying, having the headroom (given the word length of
> modern DSP architectures) is not hard.
Julf, I agree totally! Should never happen.
See
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?98661-Some-observations-about-the-Benchmark-DAC1/page2=
see post 13 and 18
darrenyeats wrote:
> Julf, for me the money shot is here:
> http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1990168=11
Darren, could you explain how you got those waveforms? As far as I can
see, they are screen shots from an audio editor, which presumably means
that you recorded the output of
d6jg wrote:
> I think you will find that the UCA202 is 16/44.1 not 16/48.
The hardware is capable of 32, 44.1 and 48 kHz. Perhaps the drivers for
your OS limit it to 44.1, but I have not had any issues with 48 kHz
under linux.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In
Mnyb wrote:
> Funny enough i suspect a phone can best many DAC's in this regards as
> they seems to have some really cool DSP onboard (in fact i think my
> phone beats my first DAC in every other aspect as well ... )
Indeed. Many of the more advanced DACs have pretty good DSP capabilities
these
Julf wrote:
> The hardware is capable of 32, 44.1 and 48 kHz. Perhaps the drivers for
> your OS limit it to 44.1, but I have not had any issues with 48 kHz
> under linux.
A quick run of alsacap confirms linux supports up to 48KHz.
Code:
Card 2, ID `CODEC', name `USB
19 matches
Mail list logo
