DIYHiFi.org

For the sake of audio
It is currently Sat Nov 29, 2014 9:28 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: PMD200 vs PMD100
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 4:36 pm
Posts: 42
I can for a premium get a PMD200 out of a broken CDP. I've never heard a PMD200.

Most of my music is HDCD ( I listen to the Grateful Dead, Joni Mitchell almost exclusively), so I need true HDCD decoded, none of this HDCD.exe which doesn't do transient filtering. These mastering engineers use the real deal PM2 ADC and use transient filtering.

I have three PMD100 DACs. Has anyone heard the PMD200 vs the PMD100? Is the PMD200 a better sounding chip? Equal?

It would make my life more convenient so I could listen to native 24/96 recordings without downsampling/dithering.

But I've always heard that majority of DSP (PMD200) filters sound inferior to SIC (PMD100). Just looking for opinions if this is a project worth while, it would take some crafty work to fashion a PMD200 converter board but I'm up for the task, just want to make sure its worth the cost.

I have a very resolving system (high dollar headphones can distiguish equipment differences like no other.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMD200 vs PMD100
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:06 pm
Posts: 264
glen wrote:
Most of my music is HDCD ( I listen to the Grateful Dead, Joni Mitchell almost exclusively), so I need true HDCD decoded, none of this HDCD.exe which doesn't do transient filtering. These mastering engineers use the real deal PM2 ADC and use transient filtering.


YOU'VE BEEN SUCKERED!!!!

THERE IS NO TRANSIENT FILTERING ON PLAYBACK!!!!

Use the search function and find out more.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMD200 vs PMD100
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 4:36 pm
Posts: 42
Sorry you've been suckered. The MicroSoft implementation on widows media player doesn't do transient filtering because it can' (requires oversampling.)

Recordings made by Jeffry Norman with a geniune PM2 do have transient filtering (change filter on the fly).

Plus I like the PMD dithering & sound so lets not dreail the thread, unless you've operated a $20k PM2 ADC.

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMD200 vs PMD100
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:26 pm
Posts: 4928
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
I think the transient filtering is only done on the recording side, performed by the ADC.
The 88.2Khz recorded signal is delayed and then processed.

Quote:
Ritter describes the HDCD approach to this problem: "We slightly delay the 88.2kHz signal, not enough to cause any sync problems but enough that we can do a continuous Fast Fourier Transform. The resultant information is digitally analyzed in real time by an algorithm that determines, based upon a model of the mechanics of hearing and psychoacoustics, what is perceptually dominant in the signal from instant to instant. And that information is used to optimize the decimation filter. One moment you might have a sudden sharp transient, so it uses a filter with minimum time dispersion to pass the transient cleanly. The next instant, there might be a cymbal crash, so it uses a filter that minimizes alias distortion. All the filters are the same length, so you are not getting a phase shift as this is going on."

Here:
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_pacific_ ... nics_hdcd/

I don't see what relation this may have to the playback side, the DF.
But I may be missing something.
You can upsample, and then...???
The PMD200 accepts sample rates up to 96Khz, but then what?
Play with the signal and you'll loose the HDCD, the DF won't decode it.

_________________
Carlos Filipe

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMD200 vs PMD100
PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:49 pm
Posts: 24
Location: SoCal
The HDCD LSB code has 3 bits reserved for up to 8 filters, all with same group delay for switching on the fly. If encoded from a high resolution source, there is a difference in "transients". If from a 44.1kHz source, obviously not.

The PMD-200 does have a later generation, more finely filigreed filter (there are more technical descriptions, but I'm in a subjective mood today...) better tradeoffs with a higher horsepower engine. However (there's always that, eh) the output stream is not registered/reclocked as in the PMD-100, so external reclocking is not optional.

The PMD-200 in sw mode can also output 3 wire, maybe to feed a Sabre DAC. But you must reclock to de-jitter.

_________________
...there shall in this time be rumors of things going astray...um...and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are...and nobody will really know where lieth those little things...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMD200 vs PMD100
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 4:36 pm
Posts: 42
Anyone familiar with the DF1704? Slow vs fast filter? Why is it so hard to understand that the PM2 encoded switching between two filter schemes on the fly at playback? Why in the heck would the code be in the HDCD silver if it wasn't used?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMD200 vs PMD100
PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:06 pm
Posts: 264
glen wrote:
Anyone familiar with the DF1704? Slow vs fast filter? Why is it so hard to understand that the PM2 encoded switching between two filter schemes on the fly at playback? Why in the heck would the code be in the HDCD silver if it wasn't used?


You're right. I'm wrong. Pacific Microsonics was the paragon of virtue. Everything they did was perfect and should be accepted without question. Therefore it is instantly obvious that since they used two filters on the record side that they also did on the playback side.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMD200 vs PMD100
PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:11 pm
Posts: 530
glen wrote:
Anyone familiar with the DF1704? Slow vs fast filter? Why is it so hard to understand that the PM2 encoded switching between two filter schemes on the fly at playback? Why in the heck would the code be in the HDCD silver if it wasn't used?


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1758&p=38385&hilit=+HDCD+box+is+working#p38385


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMD200 vs PMD100
PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:49 pm
Posts: 24
Location: SoCal
No matter how annoyed one may be at PM's lateral marketing strategy, virtue or lack of it therein has nothing to do with how many filters are built into the spec. Like it or not, there are 2^3 or 8 filter settings available in the orig spec, designed to be switchable on the fly. In practice, how many are used or activated varies. PM's initial lack of transparency about what was in the magic black box was a marketing decision, in that they were a start-up "tap dancing with the elephants" and felt they needed an edge to survive before the big players stepped on them, or snapped them up. The latter happened, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on one's perspective.

_________________
...there shall in this time be rumors of things going astray...um...and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are...and nobody will really know where lieth those little things...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMD200 vs PMD100
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:11 pm
Posts: 530
I'd say it is the 'In practice' bit that is of significance here. Does the HDCD LED respond to the mere use of a PM A/D or something a little more specific ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMD200 vs PMD100
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:26 pm
Posts: 4928
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
In practice those 8 filter settings are user selectable.
It's a manual process. :D

_________________
Carlos Filipe

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMD200 vs PMD100
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:11 pm
Posts: 530
carlosfm wrote:
In practice those 8 filter settings are user selectable.
It's a manual process. :D

Presumably, you mean the dither settings. I think WMS was referring to something different.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMD200 vs PMD100
PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:06 pm
Posts: 264
wildmonkeysects wrote:
Like it or not, there are 2^3 or 8 filter settings available in the orig spec, designed to be switchable on the fly.


Uhh...

Those are dither settings not filter settings.

Even if you like to drink the PM Kool-Ade, how can you reconcile only two "filter" codes on the disc versus your alleged eight filters in the "orig. spec"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMD200 vs PMD100
PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:06 pm
Posts: 264
rfbrw wrote:
I'd say it is the 'In practice' bit that is of significance here. Does the HDCD LED respond to the mere use of a PM A/D or something a little more specific ?


Just using the PM A/D will insert the "secret decoder ring code" and light up the light. Good advertising, and designed to make you feel like you need something that you don't really need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PMD200 vs PMD100
PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:49 pm
Posts: 24
Location: SoCal
To clarify: yes to both.

The PMD-100 has 8 dither settings (3 flag/set bits) for playback; one avail in standalone/hw mode, 8 avail in sw mode. The higher levels can sound smoother, more "analog like", but can also overwhelm electronics downstream, including the I/V, except for very fast settling, or passive & open loop which are usually happy with this. Usually.

Not to be confused with, and in addition to, (8 of Diamonds is similar to 8 of Clubs in number only...) the HDCD encoder has 8 filter settings available. These 3 flag/set bits are embedded in the LSB code, and set the filter(s) on the fly to match on playback. The default filter is indeed a brickwall one. Although HDCD has 3 flag bits avail for filter, typically one or two filters in addition to the default are used in practice. Obviously without the HDCD LSB code, the default filter (brickwall) will be set. But, so far as brickwall filters go, it is a good set of tradeoffs, at least a few ears and minds I respect seem to think so. As to full path HDCD, IMHO, dynamic filtering with conjugate filters on playback is an elegant solution within a limited medium, rather than trying to find a "one size fits all" solution that does not quite fit all. HDCD was intended to be an interim solution until a high resolution distribution standard and medium was settled on.

What is not clear is why the intensity of the Sour Grapes. I smell a lot of pain and anger here. What gives? Who was harmed? Who feels violated and vindictive over what?

Funny story: when the inventors were filing the patents, the PTO did not believe one could send data through LSB dither that appeared to the outside world to be random. Guess they had not heard of CDMA. So, the inventors had to take a breadboard with LEDs and toggle switches to show it could be done repeatably and reliably. And that is the patent MS wanted when the snapped up PM.

So, back to the orig Question of the thread already: the 100 is good enough, 200 is gooder in some ways but quirkier in others, and would take a labor of love to implement. If that is fun as a creative endeavo(u)r, why not?

_________________
...there shall in this time be rumors of things going astray...um...and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are...and nobody will really know where lieth those little things...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group