Good morning,
I’m trying to test the Cambridge CXN V2 and the new WiiM Ultra using Roon. I disabled all the settings on both devices, trying to reset everything. But Roon applies a 44/384 setting to the Cambridge that I can’t disable. I’ve also looked at the Cambridge settings in the app itself, but I didn’t find anything. Does anyone have any idea how to disable it?
Thanks.
No, as you can see this Cambridge and not Roon. You can’t disable Cambridge’s unique ATF2 (Adaptive Time Filtering) upsampling technology – but it only affects the analog outputs from the built-in DAC, digtal outputs are not affected.
1 Like
Thanks for clarifying, I wanted to compare exactly the two DAC’s using the analog output, especially since both are connected to a 30 year old MC 6800, which has no digital input. If you have any suggestions I would appreciate it.
Just go on then with your comparison. Digital reconstruction filters are part of the digital to analog conversion process. Both DACs use them. Cambridge uses a unique DSP based external filter that they claim sounds better than the built-in one from the DAC chip silicon. Because it is external it gets shown in Roon’s signal path while all those other built-in ones don’t get displayed. Manufacturers also usually don’t talk much about these built-in ones (nothing special, not their IP).
2 Likes
PS: These are up-sampling/over-sampling filters. So for Cambridge’s filter to be able to up-sample to 384 kHz there has to be less going in. With what is typically available as source material this means 192 kHz is the ceiling for the Cambridge. While the device may accept higher sample rates on it’s inputs (because the clocks are there anyway) doesn’t necessarily mean all those samples get used. Same goes for the WiiM. Here from the theory one might think the ceiling is 384 kHz but by looking at the datasheet of the DAC chip silicon I’m not sure about this, it might be 192 kHz as well.
IMHO the industry makes it hard on purpose for customers to figure out what is going on exactly / what is actually used versus what’s just accepted on inputs for convenience of the users (marketing, higher sample rates = higher sales price; stuff like that).
1 Like
Wiim currently only supports 192/24 for its own DAC and app. Not sure if it can pass through more via the recently introduced USB out, but I don’t think it does.
I’m impressed to see a manufacturer not blindly using and advertising the raw specs of the DAC-chip silicon but, what looks to me, sensibly and sincere engineered devices. I will definitively look closely at what products WiiM has to offer when I next need a new (digital) audio device.
It’s always glad to discover (new for me) solid and down-to-earth manufacturers with the help of other forum members. 
PS: Edited my previous post to clarify (hopefully) that I was talking about the DAC chip silicon and not the actual product.
2 Likes
Oh they do still advertise the DAC silicone as being higher and quite happily quote it which confuses a lot of users. It’s just less on operation as they have only supported spdif up until very recently and likely due to its DSP functions. All Blusound devices have DAC silicone capable of higher but again their infrastructure limits it to 192/24 as does HEOS although they do also support DSD128. But more transparency should happen, why quote higher specs when your actual software can’t use it.
If you can’t use higher how can they market it? I personally am more concerned about the companies that market the raw DAC-chip silicon input capability without telling their customers that those high sample-rates don’t get actually used.
It’s great to let the DAC chip discard the excessive samples if your source is in those higher sample-rate and you don’t have better down-sampling possibilities. But there are user of hard-/software that does a potentially better job down-sampling and the people who needlessly up-sample to higher than needed sample-rates (waste of energy and bandwidth).
Not to mention all the, often fruitless, discussion about supposedly audible differences between sample-rates where in fact there is no difference in sampling-rates because of the filters and the limits they impose on the signal.
The Topping DX3 Pro+ for example uses the same DAC-chip silicon as the WiiM Ultra (datasheet linked above) and is marketed as “It supports 32-Bit/768kHz”.
Sheesh, guys, you mean DAC chip silicon.
Silicone is used to inflate something other than sample rates.
AJ
1 Like
1 Like
Hi @abdoabdala,
What are your conclusions after comparing the WiiM and the CXN v2?
I’m very interested in the comparison because I was thinking of buying the CXN but then WiiM came into the picture.
Cheers,
Joost
Honestly, I couldn’t tell a difference, and when you get to the adjustments, I’d say it’s impossible. It seems to me that the CXN is more metallic, but that’s just my ears. It’s not something that a simple equalization adjustment can’t make the two sound the same. I think the CXN is prettier, for those who have other devices of the same size. Now, in terms of access to Roon, Library, etc., both are just as good. Two advantages of the WiiM are room adjustment and phono output. I tested the phono output by connecting my Rega Planar 3 directly to the WiiM and directly to the MC6800… I can’t tell a difference either… both work very well. If aesthetics aren’t important to you, I’d go with the WiiM.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.