Hello, I just joined, primarily for the audiophile products. Looking at purchasing the NHT C3 speakers for our new living room. Space is about 15 feet wide by 33 long and they will fire long ways. Space is just for general listening, music room with all equipment is downstairs, so hoping they will fill it with sound nicely. Cheers.
Mar 18, 2024
Excuse the tech here: It seems the Slim could do DSD as well because the AKM4490 DAC chip is the only PCM - DSD dual chip that provides "According to AKM, the volume control module and the delta-sigma modulator can be bypassed for DSD resulting in “direct” DSD rendering. The AK4490 contains an integrated low-pass filter specifically for DSD data. The ultimate specified performance for SACD (as described in the Scarlet Book) can be easily realized with a simple external analog filter. The DSD data is received by the DSD interface and sent directly to the “SCF” (Switched Capacitor Filter) block. DSD filter can be selected at 50KHz, 100KHz or 150KHz cut-off." All of this built in internally. The SABRE DACs btw are not capable of bypassing the Delta Sigma making the AKM superior fro DSD IMO. Maybe the USB interface chip is more bandwidth limited in the Slim?
Anyways, after researching and talking to a Tech at CEntrance I discovered the DACport HD AKM4490 filters are set to the default setting of "Short delay Sharp Rolloff" which is an older approach on filters. (Excellent tech support to even know this!) What I am surprised by is the DACPORT HD design doesn't incorporate the cutting edge "Super Slow Rolloff" filter that AKM went out of there way to embed in their AKM4490 Flagship "Verita"design. The AKM4397 Verita (2016 flagship DAC for AKM) also now includes this SSR filter and and an even more enhanced version of this "Super Slow Rolloff."
Some DAC integrated designs allow access to these built in filters but since the DACPORT is lacking a button , I understand it is not as simple to change. Setting up the the internal filters is easy to do in the initialization registers in firmware. So my question is " Why was the Default standard "Short Delay" (antiquated) filter used instead of the cutting edge AKM "Super Slow Rolloff"? in both DACport designs? Was every filter tested before final decision was made? Or was an output buffering circuit designed with this in mind?
By the way I ordered an Dacport HD due to its AKM4490's proper implementation of DSD. I might also get a Slim for a second system. I do applaud the 40khz rolloff versus 20khz standard, The no filter caps and class A output design approach. The fact that you write Drivers for many manufactures, your units are made in the USA and have endorsements from leaders in the Audio industry kinda tops Schiit and all others IMO. Bravo!
It would be nice to hear from the mind of CEntrance the thoughts behind output filter choices.
In regards to the DSD feature on the HD, (nice to have the choice versus for example Schiit not giving one). DSD is more a niche that was poorly supported by record companies who rather spend their money persuading the governments to police our internet privacy than provide a "high rez" standardized format. The core of the debate seems to find DSD vs equal "high rez" PCM to be just a different mastering versus 1 is better than the other. Sorta like how LP's are mastered differently and have appeal for those reasons. The advantage Native DSD brings is it helps prevent "bit manipulation" by the user or OS allowing us to hearing the Final Master but ironically DSD simultaneously allows custom output filters (the same as on board Dac built in filtering) via computer processing pre-signal sent to the DAC. (we get to play designer) (see hqplayer) I myself will likely only use DSD 2-5% of the time. Still I went for the HD because I like to have features to play with.
If i wrote a review I would definitely quote ya here: "Yes, we have spent months listening to the AK4490's multiple internal filters, but we didn't just choose one." "Nevertheless, we are very proud of the sound we have achieved and know that you will enjoy it just as much as we do."
Awesome! Put me on the "Faith" bandwagon! (pride in ones creation is rare these days)
Since I may momentarily have your ear, My only critique with CEntrance is that it would be nice to have actual benchmark tests on your website for all of your products. Such as SNR, IMD, FR, THD at var. frequency and output impedance to represent the range of headphones, Dac linearity, Phase linearity, Jitter spectrum & pitch accuracy, Cross talk and channel separation, Square wave at various freq. , Transient impulse, Noise floor, Volume channel balance, Etc. All Tests at each gain setting (when possible) of all your devices. Your likely to have some or most of these. Otherwise how could you insure you were not getting placebo "Faith" results? (Rhetorical and not questioning CEntrance's vast audio expertise experience) Functioning is easy to test, Functioning as intended often requires tedious bench marking with days of boring mind numbing setups and cross checks to insure results which often do not remotely even resemble the joy of listening. Correlating Data interpretation to what we hear gets even more complicated. Yet empirically certain tests do show us what we "hear".
If you did publish some benchmark data I and likely many others will jump off the subjective "Faith Bandwagon" to the "Super Fanboy" train based on pure objectivity with a passion for "Faith in the Designer."
That being said , I and likely others greatly thank you for providing a Most Excellent cost effective device.