Thank you!
So? How does it sound? Is it that much better than lower options, like 768 or 3xx? Thanks!
L
1 Like
It does, for me personally I like it more. Need to try if your DAC supports the rates.
More details on Voice
Percussion’s more vivid
1 Like
My favorite has always been poly-sinc-gauss-xla but for rock / pop it was too smooth and I lost that “snap”. I was always bouncing around trying to decide what was best and usually would use short.
But, then I installed HQP5, and found I really liked sinc-MGa for rock / pop and darn near anything at 16/44.1. Now you tell me its just gauss-xla 
This software is too fun!
(everything is sampled to DSD256 towards a ADI-2 DAC FS AKM)
Length is slightly different, which affects the filter steepness a bit, but other parameters are same. The algorithm used to process the filter is different which causes the restriction in terms of possible conversion ratios.
Hope filter disussions from a still HQPe v4 is welcome here?
I have spent hours with a dear friend of mine checking a set of filter settings and not particular the noise suppression this time, but the consequences on SQ or should I say the soundstage effects.
Question for the poly-sinc-gauss-xla; does the result (or filter operation itself) incorporate substantial wide band compression?
My friend said it completely transformed a specific track he is using to audition the compression of a live track from the album Les Miserables. He said he has noticed at a friend that he did not like the filter permance at all. At my place he said it did not ruin the music, but completely altered the mix levels of the individual tracks of the recording. We off course went over to playing same track PCM 16/44.1 with NO filter, not even Dither. To my surprise it did not show any harschness at all, but the individual tracks of the voice and instruments very much changed position in the sound stage. No notes were missing but the relation between the notes became a very different story. We then changed config again, this time I went to PCM, but 32/384. Same positions as the 16/44.1 but much sweeter and soft and no notes missing. Back to original again, SDM, poly-sinc-gauss-xla, the sound stage became more 2D, most notes equally audible and on “same page”. So I had to re-evaluate what my friend (the studio owner) said, the overall feeling of the filter is a brilliant and intelligent, but still a wide band, multi-track compressor.
Is his opinion correct, when it comes to the filter operation “behind the curtains”?
My conclusion are supporting the upcoming update of the HQPe, I would like to have the filter and setting update on the fly. The benefit from each filter is really per music track and not as much as my now challanged opinion one-fits-all, as it seems. And when reaching the point were the overall system noise is lowered to a very low level, it seems the filter choice is no longer the matter of being able to listen to certain tracks at all, but rather when the filter is supporting the perceived original mix intention the best possible way?
Do not know if I make sense (don’t answer that, it is a strictly retorical question) … 
What I mean is, if the filter is intended to work the way I discovered, would it not be of interest to add this info in the manual? I guess there are intensions for all the filters, and if there are intended mathematical actions to compress/XXX/YYY/any-other-effect, I would be VERY interested to know the desired effect. Now, this is not at all a claim of being sorry about my favourite filter, it makes wonders to very much music, but I would guess that the designer is quite aware about the possible outcome of the filters and their designs? Those would be highly interesting to read in the manual. No fancy novel, but a brief presentation of the expected result.
Thanks! I’m trying to find out up to when it’s valuable to keep on trying to get higher rates…
No, of course not. And it’s effect on the output is independent of the output rate, since it is a constant time filter.
You can change filters on the fly on v5.
gauss-xla may not be as much all-round filter as for example gauss-long.
Another possibility is that the guy in studio didn’t use as great system and didn’t realize how his mix really actually sounds like when not mangled by the audio system…
Many times it is not so hard to hear all the flaws in the source material too.
I have explained many times and there’s also some information in the manual.
And I’ve tried to tell many times, that going for the longest filters is not really necessarily beneficial. Depending on source content, using too long filter may also have negative effects. I personally prefer to balance somewhere in the middle most of the time. (check your filter choice vs content genre with the table in manual)
From objective perspective, each time you increased the output rate to your ADI-2, the high frequency distortions were reduced by several tens of dB…
2 Likes
Pls. Jussi, I did not mean to challange you in any way. As I said there is no claim of being sorry, just thoughts from a several hours listening session together with a studio owner and aftermath battery of thoughts/questions from me not at all being at your level of skills. I have not thought there was a compressor, but the effect on SQ sounded much like it.
The conclusion is excactly the words from you, I know there will be in real time changes available in v5. Further I know I will benefit from trying the best filter solution for the track, or perhaps genre.
I thank you for replying, and hope you can rest easy that the questions were not intended to diminishing your work. Sorry that you repeatedly have to answer “same” questions, but please also have in mind that there is not much info in the users guide, or should I say, it takes a while to start understanding how to implement the info given.
2 Likes
Dear @jussi_laako
i’ve got a Burson Composer DAC (ESS 9038QM2) and i was wondering which modulator would technically “the best”?. As far as i remember you recommend ASDM5EC for ESS chips?
Thank you very much for your help
Best
Dominik
Usually fifth order works best up to 9038. Now with the newer 9039 they changed DSD implementation and seventh order also works nicely with those. But this is not black and white, so you can try which way you prefer.
Also DSD256 vs DSD512 varies on the particular DAC implementation and the perspective being looked at regarding objective performance.
1 Like
Hello everybody,
Since quite a long time I use the combination of ASDM7ECv3, poly-sinc-gauss-long / hires-lp, 48k x 256 - and I am very happy with it.
Yesterday I tried the new ASDM7EC-ul-512+fs with the same filters and a rate of 44.1 x 512. I have the impression to hear a difference in terms of even a little bit wider and deeper sound stage and a slight increase in detail richness. Is this a subjective imagination or is it explainable technically?
@jussi_laako, what does “ultralight-version” exactly mean and does it have SQ-drawbacks over the “light” and “super” modulators?
Greetings
Oliver
@jussi_laako I’ve lately fell in love (again) with AMSDM 512+fs and AMSDMEC 512+fs modulators and I saw one comment from you in an earlier thread that technically AMSDMECv3 512+fs would be possible as well. That made me wonder: would that be heavier or lighter to calculate than “normal” ASDMECv3? If it would be lower or roughly at the same level, that filter would be super interesting.
1 Like
And another very interesting would be ASDM7-ul/light/super 512+fs (without EC) as that would likely be much easier to calculate than EC version and one would be able to listen to that amazing soundstage, just with less detail.
ASDM7EC-ul is already very light, somewhat overclocked Raspberry Pi5 can process DSD256 with it.
I don’t think I’m going to make any non-EC modulators anymore, the EC ones are so much better.
3 Likes
Thanks for your input. Yes the normal one is very light, but 512+fs version is different kind of animal and sounds much better, so that’s the one I was thinking. But yes, most people will likely land on EC modulators in the long run. Their only downside is that they bring those certain details forward a lot, which masks the macro structure. But I understand that there are basically unlimited variations one could consider and you need to prioritize.
512+fs one is slightly lighter than the normal one, but the difference is rather small.
1 Like
Really strange. I can run ASDM7EC-super @ DSD1024x44.1k just fine, but ASDM7EC-ul 512+fs gives me dropouts constantly.