Dreadhead Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) Well these look interesting: zodiac_rubicon I watched a video and he let drop that it uses a Burr Brown DAC. the video is here: Musikmesse 2009 - Audiofanzine I dunno though. I wonder when they will be out. The quoted SNR and Dynamic ranges are insane. I assume with those numbers it would need to be the PCM1794A/PCM1792A. Edited April 22, 2009 by Dreadhead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopstretch Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 "Atomic clock input." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvark baguette Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Sweet. Also looking forward to the Nightstalker edition in black:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadhead Posted April 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Sweet. Also looking forward to the Nightstalker edition in black:D The colors aren't final. Apparently there have been versions that were gold too. I'm more than a little interested about pricing. If it's comparable to the Weiss DAC2 I will be interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blubliss Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 I have the atomic clock (10m) and another clock (ocx) of theirs. It was part of a computer setup that did not work out. Might be cool to use with this dac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filburt Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 The quoted DNR/SNR just sounds like PCM1792/1794 (in mono mode BB claims 132 DNR, 132 SNR, though). BB specifies that with a basic NE5534 I/V and LT1028 for the diff amp. Where is the specification for distortion on this unit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Monkey Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 zodiac_rubicon And from a post by Jude: It looks like there will be three models: Zodiac, tentatively priced at ~$1500.00.Zodiac+, tentatively priced at ~$2500.00.Zodiac Gold, tentatively priced at ~$3500.00.If I heard correctly, I think the Zodiac Gold (which isn't shown on their site yet) will have a gold relay attenuator. It looks like all will have Trinity-level clocking. I expect to have a chance to hear at least one of these units--hopefully in a couple of weeks--when Marcel from Antelope Audio stops by my office for a visit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadhead Posted October 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Other interesting info on the thread Hi guys, We have 384Khz working via USB, but we're waiting for a software that will support it to test it out. So far, Sonic Studio's Amarra software will auto-rate switch with the USB versions of Zodiac up to 192Khz, but they are working on 384 right now. Amarra is very cool too, btw, as it uses iTunes for file management, but bypasses the core audio engine. The Zodiac will do up to 96Khz via optical and 192Khz via S/PDIF and won't have USB. Zodiac Plus will do up to 192Khz via USB and S/PDIF and will also have an AES input and de-jittered digital outputs (AES and 2 S/PDIF outs, all active) Zodiac Gold (shipping in early 2010) will do up to 384Khz via USB and have a stepped attenuator with gold relays and a cool remote control. Marcel James Antelope Audio Interesting. Must be using USB 2.0 If the price for the gold holds up then they are by far the cheapest way to get up to that sample rate. The thread over there is here:REALLY High End New Dac - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morphsci Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Mmmm ... oven controlled crystal oscillator ... color me interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Mmmmm.... While there are a couple of proprietary USB 2.0 interfaces that do 192, but 384 has to be USB 3.0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadhead Posted October 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Mmmmm.... While there are a couple of proprietary USB 2.0 interfaces that do 192, but 384 has to be USB 3.0. I stand corrected I was guessing that USB2.0 was enough but I really was guessing I would never run it at 384 though. I run 24/96 and that's it. If it's good enough for Lavry it's good enough for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cclragnarok Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 I stand corrected I was guessing that USB2.0 was enough but I really was guessing I would never run it at 384 though. I run 24/96 and that's it. If it's good enough for Lavry it's good enough for me. I'm pretty sure USB 2.0 has enough bandwidth for 384. There's also the USB audio standard. I'm not sure if the class 2.0 version of this supports 384, but you don't have to use it if you write your own driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkam Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 I'm pretty sure USB 2.0 has enough bandwidth for 384. I concur usb2 has plenty bandwidth for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blubliss Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Very interested in this. I Pmd Marcel over at HF. I have their OCX and 10m(atomic) clocks sitting in the closet. This might be their perfect mate. Those clocks definitely affected the sound in a positive manner in my system but I never had the right DAC to use them with and sync to the computer. I tried them with the DAD AX24 (demo) and that was great. One problem is they don't switch sample rates on the fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 In that case, I stand corrected. Why is it such a big deal then? It seems if anyone is doing >24/96 (I.E. 24/192), they have to write a proprietary driver for it. Is it just because it's not built into the operating system/default drivers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morphsci Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 In that case, I stand corrected. Why is it such a big deal then? It seems if anyone is doing >24/96 (I.E. 24/192), they have to write a proprietary driver for it. Is it just because it's not built into the operating system/default drivers? Because it is easy to muck it up when you write your own drivers, plus your drivers should not muck up anything else, plus ...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadhead Posted October 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 My question is what do you do about DPC latency issues that arise when you're moving that much data around..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seacard Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 I am no DAxpert (i.e. Monkey) but I'm really looking forward to this more than any other DAC currently on the market. If the built-in headphone amp is at least Grace quality, this will be a great little DAC and even a decent value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopstretch Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Why is it such a big deal then? It seems if anyone is doing >24/96 (I.E. 24/192), they have to write a proprietary driver for it. Is it just because it's not built into the operating system/default drivers? My understanding that USB audio device class 2 -- required for data rates higher than 24/96 -- is not currently supported under either Windows or Linux. So if you can't use the standard device interface, you have to write your own drivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manaox2 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 This thing has always been crazy spec'd, I thought it would be much more expensive. 384 is impressive, but on the other hand I'm more interested in the Zodiac+ especially for the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvark baguette Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 holding out for the roasting oven version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopstretch Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 This thing has always been crazy spec'd, I thought it would be much more expensive. 384 is impressive, but I'm more interested in the Zodiac+ especially for the money, I doubt I will care for higher then 192 over USB even in the distant future. Yeah, and isn't there even a faction that argues higher sample rates are actually a bad thing? Dan Lavry for one? I'd like to do some good needledrops at 24/96 and 24/192 and then have a careful listen for myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltron Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Does Dan Lavry say that 192 is too high or that higher rates are not good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atothex Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Does Dan Lavry say that 192 is too high or that higher rates are not good? Yeah he says something like current DACs don't process the higher rates fast enough, so they actually sound worse than well-done 24/96. Found his post: 192KHz is the wrong thing for audio! It is not a usb issue, it is a conversion issue. While too slow a rate is a bad thing, so is too fast. If the rate is too slow, one losses the high audible frequencies. If the rate is too fast, one looses conversion accuracy, not to mention very large files for no good reason. The marketing of 192KHz has been about "more is better", and to support it, they pointed out that 48KHz can sound better then 44.1KHz. That DOES NOT automatically imply that 1GHZ (1000000000 Hz) would sound fantastic. In fact, at 1GHz, you will be lucky to have 4 bits of audio - that is worse then the early Edison phone experiments. So if too slow is not good, and too fast is not good, it leaves somewhere in between - an optimal rate. The pushers of 192KHz try to tell you that more is better, like pixels for audio, money in your pocket and so on. But the analogy is WRONG. Audio signal is NOT like video pixels. I did write a long paper about it - "Sampling Theory", and it is on my web site. I also decided NOT TO SUPPORT 192KHz, and that is not a usb issue. At this point in time, the marketing driven 192KHz has lost most of the steam, but some are still caught in the false notion that it offers something better. In fact, 88.2-96KHz is much closer to the optimum rate. Regards Dan Lavry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadhead Posted October 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 His paper is an interesting read too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.