Lampizator DSD 512

I have done it a few times with a PC server (JRiver only so far). Its an i74790K and it normally craps out after 30mins or so...but that could be due to weak power supply. Only 100w LPSU andf I run 2 SSDs internally.

Sounds great, but I feel 256 is no big compromise. Unless you have a brute Power Mac, dont bother for more than 256...likley wont work.

On the OTHER hand, the 512 chipless engine will be better than the DSD256 engine at ALL DSD rates.

Like wisnon said, we found that the DSD, even at 64, is better through the 512 chipless engine than the regular DSD engine. A few months later as you upgrade your way to GG and some valves and discover all this, you will find that many Lampi owners still are a long way from listening to the real Lampizator

bonzo said:

Like wisnon said, we found that the DSD, even at 64, is better through the 512 chipless engine than the regular DSD engine. A few months later as you upgrade your way to GG and some valves and discover all this, you will find that many Lampi owners still are a long way from listening to the real Lampizator

Click to expand...

+1.

I don't have my GG any more, but when I upgraded my GG to the 512 chipless engine from the dsd 256, it was better than prior.

Give it a try with upsampling to DSD256! See if you like the results with something like Roon, HQPlayer or JRiver. I spent a week (evenings) experimenting with Roon + HQPlayer upsampling to DSD256 and in the end, I preferred the native rate or simply upsampling with Roon. There's lot's of info over on Computer Audiophile, but beware as I started finding myself going down a bit of a rat-hole over there with some of the discussions regarding the various tweaks, gadgets, expensive USB cables, etc.

I will refer to that site again when I build my custom PC music transport. Currently, I use my laptop to feed the Atlantic via a USB cable, but even with upsampling to DSD256 the laptop will stutter if I do things like open a Web page. A good tool to maximise the performance of the PC or Mac seems to be Audio Optimizer (I don't believe it will actually make the sound "better", but I do believe it will maximize the performance of a dedicated machine with the sole purpose of playing music).

leftside said:

... A good tool to maximise the performance of the PC or Mac seems to be Audio Optimizer (I don't believe it will actually make the sound "better", but I do believe it will maximize the performance of a dedicated machine with the sole purpose of playing music).

Click to expand...

Audio Optimizer is a tool that optimizes Windows by shutting down unnecessary processes i.e. turns a windows machine into an "appliance". This is okay for software like JPlay, JRiver etc where computing power needed is trivial. However for HQPlayer you really need all the resources at your disposal as the computer needs to do some heavy number crunching. Jussi Laako of HQPlayer does not recommend using any kind of tweaking to the OS (unless you know what you are doing).

DSD 512 is an order of magnitude more computing intensive than DSD256. Instead use the most powerful processor and motherboard chipset you can get. Recommended is adding a nVidia graphics card that supports CUDA off load as HQPlayer can then offload some of the number crunching to the graphics card's processor.

In short this is the polar opposite of the Audio Optimiser approach.

I'm not so sure about that. Indeed AO optimizes Windows by shutting down unnecessary processes. This would leave more resources for HQPlayer to perform the required number crunching. Plenty of people are combining HQPlayer with AO for this exact reason:
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/13649-hqplayers-network-audio-adapter/?page=77
https://www.audiostream.com/content/audiophileoptimizer

Use the most powerful processor and motherboard chipset you can get (and maybe a graphics card) combined with AO should give the best performance for HQPlayer?

I agree though that you need to know what you are doing when installing and configuring AO. I have a computing background, and I had to read the manual twice before I was comfortable with the procedure.

I'm enjoying the opportunity to experiment that my A+ affords as a result of having the R2R/DSD256 auto-switch engine AND the DSD512 chipless engine. Does Tidal HiFi converted to DSD128 sound better than straight PCM on the R2R engine? Does DSD sound audibly enhanced when I engage the 512 engine? (It is tricky in part b/c the 512 engine plays at a level ~3dB lower than the 256 engine, requiring manual level matching.) So far I am sure that I prefer Tidal in DSD to Tidal in PCM. But high-res PCM may sound better on the R2R engine. I need more time, and, frankly my ears may aren't golden.

Bay,

The advantage I have is that I have Vol Control on my GG and can set levels independent for both engines. I have a -6db difference on the DSD512 engine (based on my hearing - not db meter tested) and when I switch on the fly via remote, i am assured of level matching. R2R DSD on the GG seem closer to the chipless 512 module than it did with the A+ demo unit I tried.

You are right, its much fun to play around with this stuff and I love the fact that autoswitching gets rid of any possibility of clicks, pops and thumps.

PS, I take it by your moniker, you are in Toronto?