or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › The official "Theta" thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The official "Theta" thread - Page 172

post #5131 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogger View Post

My understanding of sampling rates is that the sampling is not just about frequency response. "PCM streams have two basic properties that determine their fidelity to the original analog signal: the sampling rate, the number of times per second that samples are taken; and the bit depth, which determines the number of possible digital values that each sample can take." When I read this I get that even lower frequency signals are sampled more with more samples per second. I'm not interested in theory that I should not need or be able to hear frequencies below 20Khz sampled more times per second.
Who told you that? And who does that anymore? Aren't all A/Ds oversampling now?
Quote:
Even in the case of video, there seems to always be some theory that I can't see better than what 720p delivered, then it was 1080p, now were headed to 4k for video and then 8k. Every time, I've been able to see an improvement.
Of course! Each time the resolution increases, you can enjoy a larger image without seeing the pixels or jaggies. 720p was just as able to achieve perfect, grain free images as 8k, as long as the pixels painted on your retina remain small enough. That means: don't sit too close. wink.gif
Quote:
With audio, I can also hear an improvement for higher data sampling rates of analog signals. The original wave is always analog and the more times that wave is sampled with more possible values, the more accurate the digital representation of the original wave will be. It's that simple for me.
Just as with pixels, there is also a limit to human hearing in frequency response and dynamic range. Digital audio comfortably exceeds those limits with 58 kHz sampling and 20 bits. Anything beyond that in a delivery medium is unnecessary. For DSP processing it indeed requires higher bit depths to preserve that 20-bit quality, so computations at 24-48 bits makes perfect sense. Since the world does not support 58 kHz, then 96 kHz is the best option. Anything above that is pure marketing folly.

Simple as that. smile.gif
post #5132 of 6796
Bulldogger,

Have you read this?

http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf

If not, I highly suggest it. I suggest anyone who hasn't read it to do so.

Enjoy...
post #5133 of 6796
After reading that "white" paper, I have made an appointment to get my ears cleaned out, and a lobotomy, as I have been apparently imaging some sonic differences!
post #5134 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post

After reading that "white" paper, I have made an appointment to get my ears cleaned out, and a lobotomy, as I have been apparently imaging some sonic differences!
Could be imagination (especially if you know the sample rates you are hearing at the time), or it could be differences in the sources. Hearing differences does not prove they sound different. But even if they do sound different, that does not prove it is due to sample rate.
post #5135 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Could be imagination (especially if you know the sample rates you are hearing at the time), or it could be differences in the sources. Hearing differences does not prove they sound different. But even if they do sound different, that does not prove it is due to sample rate.

We are all but 3D holographic images on someone else's computer chip/ship at the edge of the universe anyway.
Funny - I picked out easily that the Eagles 2Ch and MC 96-24 DVD-A disc, even ripped, of Hotel California sucks, Yet HDTracks brand new 192-24 of the Eagles first six albums, including Hotel California, sound terrific. Again, that proves nothing other than the DVD-A disc mix sucks!! Oh well!
post #5136 of 6796
Steve, Audiogon is having a special on HDTracks.com. There is a sampler available for $5. You can get it in 192/24, 96/24, or 44/16. I paid $10 and bought both the 44/16 and the 192/24. On my system, I can't tell the difference. They both sound amazingly good. This leads me to believe the recording engineering is much more important than bits and rates. It's also quite possible that my system/environment sucks and I may have been able to hear a difference on a better system.

For $10, it's worth to test it out for yourself. At least this way you're comparing apples to apples.

http://hub.audiogon.com/wake-up-your-ears-sampler/
post #5137 of 6796
I've had that Audiogon sampler in 192-24 for some time now!! Its a good one!
post #5138 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardV View Post

Steve, Audiogon is having a special on HDTracks.com. There is a sampler available for $5. You can get it in 192/24, 96/24, or 44/16. I paid $10 and bought both the 44/16 and the 192/24. On my system, I can't tell the difference. They both sound amazingly good. This leads me to believe the recording engineering is much more important than bits and rates. It's also quite possible that my system/environment sucks and I may have been able to hear a difference on a better system.

For $10, it's worth to test it out for yourself. At least this way you're comparing apples to apples.

http://hub.audiogon.com/wake-up-your-ears-sampler/

You couldn't be more correct. The mix down / recording engineer is the most vital component to a decent reproduction. Ill take the eagles as an example. I have about every possible release on virtually every media. And the best reproduction, IMO, of Hotel California is the DVD release of Hell Freezes over.

Perhaps try ripping that Steve and playing that back thru your caps machine?
post #5139 of 6796
I have all of that stuff.

Have you tried the lastest HDTracks downloads of the remastered first six Eagles albums? Quite spectacular, particularly in 192-24.
I've previously experimented and don't need to read someone's white paper (there's always a white paper proving the opposite, too)
to tell me how or what to listen to on my system.

I agree that mastering is most important.

However, for someone to say that a well mastered 44-16 sounds as good as the same well mastered 96-24 (or 192-24), all I can say is quit smokin' the dope or better a better system and room. As for 95-24 vs 192-24, again, it all depends on the mastering. Absolutely, we agree on that.

I have a James Taylor redbook Audio Fidelity gold cd, ripped, sounds great! However, the HDTracks 192-24 version is appreciably better.
Since I do not purchase duplicate 192-24 and 96-24 I haven't compared them. But I have used Korg Audiogate to rip 96-24 out of 192-24 and most, but not all, of the time I could tell the difference with my front end Theta Citadel 1.5 monoblocks, Aerial 9 speakers, Theta Generation VIII Series 3 DAC, formerly with Bryston BDP-1 Media Player, now with my custom Media Server and Berkeley Audio Alpha USB Converter.
post #5140 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post

However, for someone to say that a well mastered 44-16 sounds as good as the same well mastered 96-24 (or 192-24), all I can say is quit smokin' the dope or better a better system and room. As for 95-24 vs 192-24, again, it all depends on the mastering. Absolutely, we agree on that.

While true in principle, in my experience the difference in SQ due to mastering/recording quality totally dwarfs differences due to resolution difference. Add the fact that on very good gear 44/16 can deliver a totally satisfying listening experience and I have pretty much lost interest in 2 channel high-rez (of course, if a high-rez recording is available I'll take it over the 44/16).

What truly saddens me though is the lack of native multi channel material. The difference between MCH and 2 channel is a good system is night and day.
post #5141 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post

While true in principle, in my experience the difference in SQ due to mastering/recording quality totally dwarfs differences due to resolution difference. Add the fact that on very good gear 44/16 can deliver a totally satisfying listening experience and I have pretty much lost interest in 2 channel high-rez (of course, if a high-rez recording is available I'll take it over the 44/16).

What truly saddens me though is the lack of native multi channel material. The difference between MCH and 2 channel is a good system is night and day.

A poor mastered and poor sounding redbook with the higher resolution taken from the same source will of course translate to a poor mastered and poor sounding higher resolution recording as well.

But there are lots of recordings out there that are mastered to good or better sound quality.

If you go thru the painstaking process of ripping SACDs you will get some good stuff for the most part, particularly classical.

I agree with you that well mastered redbook can sound terrific on a good sounding system - it does on mine! And I enjoy it!

As for multichannel:

Take an Oppo blu ray player (or the Theta players based on Oppo), which output SACD via HDMI only at 88-24: SACD 2 or multichannel sounds lousy - lacks dynamics & microdynamics and soundstaging. DVD-Audio 2 or multichannel sounds nice (at least with Theta players, never impressed with sonics of redbook or DVD-Audio via the Oppo players I've had, the 83 and 93).

Now, rip everything and play via a good music server as in my new modded CAPS3.0 Zuma Music Server, Theta CB3 HD SSP, Theta Generation VIII Series 3 DAC, etc: First, 2 channel and multichannel over HDMI sounds outstanding, I really enjoy it. But now add the Berkeley Audio Alpha USB converter (AES/EBU digital out to Gen VIII DAC, BNC digital out to Theta CB3 HD) and two channel straight to the Gen VIII DAC is mind blowing, considerably better than the excellent 2 channel using HDMI (2 channel using HDMI to CB3 HD SSP is close to on par with using the Bryston BDP-1, my former music server, via AES/EBU to the Gen VIII DAC).

Berkeley Audio contends that everything else being equal, using the quality outboard USB to digital converter will sound better than simply using a quality DAC with built-in asynchronous USB input. At this time HDMI technology can't compete with that. So it a quality audiophile system, no matter how good multi-channel sounds, two channel will still reign supreme for the "you are there" feeling from the music.
post #5142 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post

Berkeley Audio contends that everything else being equal, using the quality outboard USB to digital converter will sound better than simply using a quality DAC with built-in asynchronous USB input. At this time HDMI technology can't compete with that. So it a quality audiophile system, no matter how good multi-channel sounds, two channel will still reign supreme for the "you are there" feeling from the music.

All you are saying is you are taking such a hit in SQ by having to route your MCH audio signal through HDMI, that playing a 2 channel mix of the same content over CAPS3 -> Berkeley -> GenVIIIs sounds better. I have always avoided HDMI for audio myself, for precisely this reason. However, when you run MCH through the Vanity93 modded Oppo AES/EBU into a Trinnov processor, and use an audiophile outboard DAC on the digi out of the Trinnov for the mains, the 2 channel mix of the same material cannot hold a candle to the 5.1 mix (for example the 2L Nordic sound recordings).

Once I have sorted out my configuration problems, I will see how playings MCH rips on the CAPS 3 with the Lynx card compares to the modded Oppo. My expectations is it will be similar SQ, but I could be wrong. My reference MCH DVD-A recording is "Another Stoney Evening" - Crosby & Nash. If lynx sounds worse than the Oppo, I won't bother ripping my MCH SACDs. If it is equivalent or better, I will rip all my SACDs and concert BRs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post

Berkeley Audio contends that everything else being equal, using the quality outboard USB to digital converter will sound better than simply using a quality DAC with built-in asynchronous USB input.

This appears to be the case for 99% of DACs. However, I compared the USB input of my MSB DAC with the Offramp 5 + Powersupply, and the USB input on the MSB is equivalent or better. Other MSB owners have confirmed this.
post #5143 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post

We are all but 3D holographic images on someone else's computer chip/ship at the edge of the universe anyway.
Funny - I picked out easily that the Eagles 2Ch and MC 96-24 DVD-A disc, even ripped, of Hotel California sucks, Yet HDTracks brand new 192-24 of the Eagles first six albums, including Hotel California, sound terrific. Again, that proves nothing other than the DVD-A disc mix sucks!! Oh well!

Good lord...The Eagles suck, period! smile.gif
post #5144 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post



Now, rip everything and play via a good music server as in my new modded CAPS3.0 Zuma Music Server, Theta CB3 HD SSP, Theta Generation VIII Series 3 DAC, etc: First, 2 channel and multichannel over HDMI sounds outstanding, I really enjoy it. But now add the Berkeley Audio Alpha USB converter (AES/EBU digital out to Gen VIII DAC, BNC digital out to Theta CB3 HD) and two channel straight to the Gen VIII DAC is mind blowing, considerably better than the excellent 2 channel using HDMI (2 channel using HDMI to CB3 HD SSP is close to on par with using the Bryston BDP-1, my former music server, via AES/EBU to the Gen VIII DAC).

Berkeley Audio contends that everything else being equal, using the quality outboard USB to digital converter will sound better than simply using a quality DAC with built-in asynchronous USB input. At this time HDMI technology can't compete with that. So it a quality audiophile system, no matter how good multi-channel sounds, two channel will still reign supreme for the "you are there" feeling from the music.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4160-Review-Berkeley-Audio-Alpha-USB

How are you powering the "Zuma" build?
post #5145 of 6796
Since you say that "The Eagles" - - - "suck", you are a "Take It To The Limit" type of guy who "Hotel California" won't book a room to. smile.gif

I have two PS Audio P5 power regenerators in my component racks. One powers the PC. The other powers my Theta Gen VIII Series 3 DAC and the Berkeley.
post #5146 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Who told you that? And who does that anymore? Aren't all A/Ds oversampling now?
Of course! Each time the resolution increases, you can enjoy a larger image without seeing the pixels or jaggies. 720p was just as able to achieve perfect, grain free images as 8k, as long as the pixels painted on your retina remain small enough. That means: don't sit too close. wink.gif
Just as with pixels, there is also a limit to human hearing in frequency response and dynamic range. Digital audio comfortably exceeds those limits with 58 kHz sampling and 20 bits. Anything beyond that in a delivery medium is unnecessary. For DSP processing it indeed requires higher bit depths to preserve that 20-bit quality, so computations at 24-48 bits makes perfect sense. Since the world does not support 58 kHz, then 96 kHz is the best option. Anything above that is pure marketing folly.

Simple as that. smile.gif
Stick with 48kHz if that sounds best to your ears. You'll never have to buy a better than 720p set either. For myself, 24/48 files do not sound as good as 24/96, period and 4k looks better 720p even from a distance. I think it's "spin" because the previous delivery systems have not be able to handle large data files or to make their sales profitable. The same was the case with CD. It was never perfect sound forever. It was a lie. It was what would fit on the disk. Processing at higher than 24/96 is not done because the current prepros don't' have the processing power to do it or can not do it in the chassis and maintain proper operating temperatures without a fan. Processing 12 channels at 24/192 is just not feasible with the current state of the art processors. That's the real reason it is not done. I can accept that. If you want onboard processing for 12 channels, there will be limits.
post #5147 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777BigAnt777 View Post

Bulldogger,

Have you read this?

http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf

If not, I highly suggest it. I suggest anyone who hasn't read it to do so.

Enjoy...
Thanks. I read it. What's the saying, "Once bitten twice shy." I read the CD was perfect sound forever papers way back when as well.
Edited by Bulldogger - 7/21/13 at 3:11am
post #5148 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Could be imagination (especially if you know the sample rates you are hearing at the time), or it could be differences in the sources. Hearing differences does not prove they sound different. But even if they do sound different, that does not prove it is due to sample rate.
Expectation works in both directions. If you do not believe that difference are possible then expectation can result in you not perceiving differences even when they exist.
Edited by Bulldogger - 7/21/13 at 8:59am
post #5149 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogger View Post

Thanks. I read it. What's the saying, "Once bitten twice shy." I read the CD was perfect sound forever papers way back when as well.

This paper reads much like what was written for the CD. Wonder why no one writes these things using square waves? The life of the music is in the transients and dynamics. Possibly why the piano is so hard to get right. The vibrating string is easy while the strike of the hammer is not.

Think about what you get if you sample a transient or a square wave at the wrong time, the delayed samples in the paper, I doubt the reconstruction will look as good.
post #5150 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogger View Post

Expectation works in both directions. If you do not believe that difference are possible then expectation can result in you not perceiving differences even when they exist.
Yes, the old "you can lead a horse to water" problem. If someone wants to say everything sounds the same, they cannot be forced to admit anything. These people are removed from properly conducted tests through qualification testing. As are any means to trigger the bias for those that remain. Then we are left with the reality -- can a difference be heard or not.
post #5151 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Yes, the old "you can lead a horse to water" problem. If someone wants to say everything sounds the same, they cannot be forced to admit anything. These people are removed from properly conducted tests through qualification testing. As are any means to trigger the bias for those that remain. Then we are left with the reality -- can a difference be heard or not.

"Properly conducted tests"! That's a lot to swallow. As an attorney, I can tell you that any company can set up a test to get the results or findings that they want in many cases, it happens all the time. Money talks. A consumer must read through all the dribble and decide for themselves. Roger, if you are happy with 24/96 top, that's your perogative. And if you read the tests and technical papers and you decide to interpret them as fully substantiating that anything more than 24/96 is a waste, fine, that's your prerogative. But please stop getting me all wet with your hose!eek.gifeek.gifeek.gifsmile.gifbiggrin.gif

I have done some demoing with some well recorded music ripped to SACD, using JRiver to convert on the fly to 176-24 vs 88-24, and I found in the well recorded music that I demod that I liked 176-24 better. I also read an "objective" analysis that 176-24, regardless of whether it sounds better, allows the low pass rolloff of the high frequencies to be more relaxed.-
post #5152 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Yes, the old "you can lead a horse to water" problem. If someone wants to say everything sounds the same, they cannot be forced to admit anything. These people are removed from properly conducted tests through qualification testing. As are any means to trigger the bias for those that remain. Then we are left with the reality -- can a difference be heard or not.
I think placebo gets misused by people that don't fully understand "expectation." I'm very rusty but I have done quite a bit of experimentation, some published in "The Journal of Experimental Psychology." Expectation is just that. A prime case and example is "room correction." I, along with others said for years the older technologies did not offer a worthwhile improvement. The first real blind test conducted by Harmon proved that two, I believe the two with THE MOST market share, offered NO improvement or made matters worse. So convinced were the faithful, most did not EVEN CONSIDER that these room correction "schemes" would offer such a result. What a shock, that most have been??! Most here believed that ALL OF THE ROOM CORRECTION SCHEMES WORKED. It appears they were mislead. It was easy for me to hear. The three technologies that worked are newer and many have not been exposed them them.

I'm not opposed to room correction. When I finally heard something that worked, I supported it, Mcintosh's "Room Perfect."

Expectation is seldom the dominate effect in an experiment or observation. It mask small differences.In subjective observation, the degree to discern differences can vary greatly by individual. Yes, I did chuckle when I say the blind Harmon study that proved what I said on the forum for a decade wink.gif. The horses are slow to "drink" the Harmon study but they are getting there. All of the "room correction" schemes have white papers and supposed science to support them. I didn't need them. I could tell.For me it's the same with higher resolution. Many that supported any and every room correction approach are the same ones that don't think higher sample rates matter.

On another note, it appears that Dirac Live only currently supports 8 channels at 24/96 for the PC software. Theta's implementation should support 12 channels. That makes sense. With the current version of HDMI, you can not transmit 12 channels of 24/96 at any rate. For many Theta users, the PC software approach might not be feasible. The trial should be fun to try however, http://shop.dirac.se/products/105-dirac-live-room-correction-suite-trial-version.aspx
post #5153 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogger View Post

Stick with 48kHz if that sounds best to your ears. You'll never have to buy a better than 720p set either.
If we're to conduct a productive discussion, it would be best not to misrepresent what I've said. I said 96 kHz was the ideal choice.
Quote:
For myself, 24/48 files do not sound as good as 24/96, period and 4k looks better 720p even from a distance.
Then you are not standing far enough from the 720p display. It's simple physics. These are exactly the same pixels. The only difference is the 4k display has more of them.
post #5154 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post

"Properly conducted tests"! That's a lot to swallow. As an attorney, I can tell you that any company can set up a test to get the results or findings that they want in many cases, it happens all the time. Money talks.
No amount of money can change human physiology.
Quote:
I have done some demoing with some well recorded music ripped to SACD, using JRiver to convert on the fly to 176-24 vs 88-24, and I found in the well recorded music that I demod that I liked 176-24 better. I also read an "objective" analysis that 176-24, regardless of whether it sounds better, allows the low pass rolloff of the high frequencies to be more relaxed.-
Yes, we hear such anecdotal testimony on a regular basis. Trouble is, there's no proof therein. We cannot know if this is expectation bias or technical differences in the <20 kHz audio caused by the different systems.

Yes, as the Nyquist frequency is increased, the rolloff slope of the anti-alias and reconstruction filters can be relaxed. This is one of the reasons that 96 kHz is able to solve the "brickwall" problems of 44.1/48 kHz sample rates. The transition band goes from 2 kHz to 24 kHz. That's a huge increase. But the notion that "more is better" does not continue without bounds. This is the point made in Lavry Engineering paper you dismissed.
post #5155 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogger View Post

If you run a server with Jriver you can use the parametric EQ or many aftermarket programs like Dirac Live or Acourate http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/529-acourate-digital-room-and-loudspeaker-correction-software-walkthrough/ .

Only if you aren't planning on any post processing later on. Room eq needs to occur after surround processing and bass management.

Shawn
post #5156 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Yes, as the Nyquist frequency is increased, the rolloff slope of the anti-alias and reconstruction filters can be relaxed. This is one of the reasons that 96 kHz is able to solve the "brickwall" problems of 44.1/48 kHz sample rates. The transition band goes from 2 kHz to 24 kHz. That's a huge increase. But the notion that "more is better" does not continue without bounds. This is the point made in Lavry Engineering paper you dismissed.

Well put. That was exactly the reason I posted that link. Please keep in mind also that Mr. Lavry is only discussing sampling frequency, not bit depth/word length.

It's important to find an optimum in many fields of study. If we don't do this in our hobby, where does it end? After DSD128, then what? Will people want their SSPs sampling at 10MHz one of these days? There must be an optimum for our limited band of hearing and that's what Mr. Lavry was discussing.

There's so much more that goes into the sound of a SSP than the DACs anyway. Every time I listen to my CB3HD (music or movies, lossless or not) I know one of the big benefits is the great work they did on the volume control years ago. Those types of things don't change drastically over time from an engineering standpoint. They change from a monetary standpoint and that's why most companies don't put the money into a proper power supply (or supplies), volume control, transformer coupling, etc.

Every time I listen to a well-recorded album in 24/96 I'm so thankful for the glorious sound. If Theta ever gets Dirac to the public I'm sure it will be fantastic in 24/96. Remember most movies, even if lossless, are 24/48.

Good listening...
post #5157 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogger View Post



All of the "room correction" schemes have white papers and supposed science to support them.

Understood and agree. Those "white papers" usually read more like marketing drivel and product sheets.

The difference with the Lavry paper is that Mr. Lavry sells DACs and is telling us, from what he's gathered/deduced, there's no benefit to a higher sampling rate than 96kHz for audio use. If he sold DSD DACs and wrote a "white paper" pumping up the superiority of DSD I'd be more suspect of his intentions.

I find it interesting that he wrote such a paper when he's in the business of making pro and hifi digital products.
post #5158 of 6796
The other evening I realized I had lost two of my subwoofers and the surround channels. Funny thing is with the CB3 HD, all channels showed up in the menu with levels and everything. But then in the menu at the DACs, it only showed front left and right, center and sub 1 for only one DAC card (Extreme).

Also, although all of my source/inputs remained, they each had defaulted to factory settings.

So I used Theta's initial CB3 HD Setup instructions, rebooted, entered the password, followed the instructions, and reset the unit for its second DAC (Extreme) card to be sub 2, sub 3, surround left, and surround right.

I rebooted and all channels were back. Yea.

I then quickly reprogrammed the menu per source input as I had them (I have a great memory. HA!).

Didn't even have to call tech support!
post #5159 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post

The other evening I realized I had lost two of my subwoofers and the surround channels. Funny thing is with the CB3 HD, all channels showed up in the menu with levels and everything. But then in the menu at the DACs, it only showed front left and right, center and sub 1 for only one DAC card (Extreme).

Also, although all of my source/inputs remained, they each had defaulted to factory settings.

So I used Theta's initial CB3 HD Setup instructions, rebooted, entered the password, followed the instructions, and reset the unit for its second DAC (Extreme) card to be sub 2, sub 3, surround left, and surround right.

I rebooted and all channels were back. Yea.

I then quickly reprogrammed the menu per source input as I had them (I have a great memory. HA!).

Didn't even have to call tech support!

and the purpose of your post is.......wink.gif
post #5160 of 6796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post

Since you say that "The Eagles" - - - "suck", you are a "Take It To The Limit" type of guy who "Hotel California" won't book a room to. smile.gif

I have two PS Audio P5 power regenerators in my component racks. One powers the PC. The other powers my Theta Gen VIII Series 3 DAC and the Berkeley.

Hehe! It's a shame that most high-res is very...errr...."dated" content.

I meant what power supply do you have in the CAPs build?

I've been going back and forth re the benefits of a high quality linear power supply in the server (plus Juli@ card with upgraded clocks etc) versus simply leaving it "rough and raw" and slotting in something like the BADA USB to SPDIF converter. But the latter is what I would expect to be available from Theta - and sooner rather than later.

One other question: does your CAPs recognise the Theta Casablanca as a multi-channel device (when connected via HDMI)? As BD knows, my current build which uses Intel HD Audio to drive the HDMI does not. I've mentioned the issue to John Baloff but the test they ran was simply to connect a laptop computer. It required a reboot once connected to an operational (powered) CB before the laptop recognised the CB as multichannel capable. A reboot does not work in my case. I may just buy a Geffen HDMI detective to deal with the issue.

I've almost got all the bits for my next audio server build. My Haswell 4570T chip arrived the other day.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › The official "Theta" thread