The size, I can understand.

But can't you simply take the tape out from your Placette and plug it into the Pacific's analog inputs? I'm assuming that the Placette has, in addition to its variable output, a fixed output...

Surely this would help with the Pacific's low input impedance also, no?

Mani.

manisandher wrote:

But can't you simply take the tape out from your Placette and plug it into the Pacific's analog inputs? I'm assuming that the Placette has, in addition to its variable output, a fixed output...

Romy the Cat wrote:

Yes, I have thought about it. My Placette has no tape loop but I think it needs to be added. It is shame that I did not think about it before – it would save me some cable not to mention an ability to run A/D from anything… I kind of mildly contemplating what would be better: a full tape loop or a full active tape buffer, but it is not the subject of this thread.

OK, I decided to do it and my beloved Placette is packed up and will be riding tomorrow back to the birth place for an installation of most likely a tape loop, I am still contemplating if a tape buffer will be better. The idea will be to have Pacific permanently bout to the Placette’s tape loop (tape buffer) and then I will be able to record any of my souse with max quietly and with no cable switching of any kind. Even the installation of the tape loop is expensive I anticipate economic feasibly from the project and it will allow freeing up an extra pair of those mean PAD cables….

I just wish Pacific had more friendly access to A/D input sensitivity attenuator. It would make my tape loop vs. tape buffer debate much simpler…

Mani, I was pointed to your thread at about Pacific:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Pacific-Microsonics-Model-Two

I do not want to join the thread and extend credit to the computer audiophile site. The idiot that runs that site is industry ass liking whore – I truly hate that type. I also do not truly know why you need to play those games.  You have the unit, you like what it does or not – why do you care about anybody else recognition of endorsement?  I truly do not understand it.

A few words from my experience. Figuratively speaking 50% of the Pacific’s quality is A/D converter, 35% is rate converter, the rest 15% is DAC.  The D/A section of this processor is juts for control and monitor what is A/D converter does. It is not bad but it is not what Pacific was made for.

Anyhow, I hope you find a lot of compassion from the computer audiophile Morons.

Romy the Cat wrote:

It would be interesting if Pacific would have an option to slave it to the source’s clock not only vice-versa.

The Weiss AFI1 interface is measuring the following clock rates (in KHz) from the Model Two:

- 44.122
- 88.244
- 176.488

AND

- 48.000
- 96.000
- 192.000

Does this imply that the 48x clock is more accurate than the 44.1x clock in the Model Two? I'm assuming that the 44.1x clock is the same as that in the Model One, so perhaps an 'older' and less accurate design than the 48x clock.

How important is a 0.05% inaccuracy in the 44.1x clock rate anyway? Audible? Anything to be worried about, e.g. is this a sign that the clock at the end of its life?

Mani.

manisandher wrote:

The Weiss AFI1 interface is measuring the following clock rates (in KHz) from the Model Two: - 44.122 - 88.244 - 176.488 AND - 48.000 - 96.000 - 192.000 Does this imply that the 48x clock is more accurate than the 44.1x clock in the Model Two? I'm assuming that the 44.1x clock is the same as that in the Model One, so perhaps an 'older' and less accurate design than the 48x clock. How important is a 0.05% inaccuracy in the 44.1x clock rate anyway? Audible? Anything to be worried about, e.g. is this a sign that the clock at the end of its life?

Mani, I do not understand the argument that older clock has less accurate design. What do you mean the “older clock”? The model one has the same 44x and 48x clocks, so there is no older and newer clocks I guess. I presume that in Pacific as in any other processors there are just two base clocks and multipliers. So, one of them is a bit off the calibration. Presumably that it is not a mis-calibration Weiss AFI1 interface the question would be what difference it makes?

If you record and play on the same Pacific then it would make no different of any kind. If you use file from another A/D processors then… how do you know that they were calibrated to the exact sapling rate? I am sure none of them were. So, the question would be: how auditable it is?

If you record at one sapling rate and play at slightly other then you have the absolutely the same effect as tape played at wrong speed. You need 44.100K but you have instead 22Hz away. This will change the tube of your A440 note. Different orchestras, for different music tune the A note to different center frequency, from 420Hz to 475Hz, sometime even more. A few Hertz here and there are auditable but how much the 22Hz of sampling offset (from 44.1K!!!) would relate to a whole note? I did not do circulations but I think it would be in vicinity of 1/131072 (2 power 8) of tone. You might hear 1/64 of note, you might hear 1/128, you might distinct even more but I do not think that you will be able to acknowledge anything more refund. I think anything behind 1/64 of full note is way burden behind the other influences to tine in audio and I do think that might have any practical meaning to look for absolute reference. At least I would not worry about it and would search for other thing to worry.

Romy the Cat wrote:

The model one has the same 44x and 48x clocks...

Romy the Cat wrote:

At least I would not worry about it and would search for other thing to worry.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I did not do circulations but I think it would be in vicinity of 1/131072 (2 power 8) of tone.

manisandher wrote:

Ah, OK. I was of the belief that the Model One could only operate at 44.1 or 88.2.

manisandher wrote:

Oh yeah, there are plenty of other things to worry about... provided the clock isn't drifting and accelerating away (if indeed it started out at exactly 44.100Khz in the first place).

manisandher wrote:

Yes, it's pretty safe to bet that I wouldn't be able to hear this. Although the other day, my wife walked in wearing a platinum necklace, and I could have sworn that I heard an improvement in the sound. But it doesn't work for anything cheaper than gold.

Romy, what actually happened? Do you know what is wrong?

I know that my unit was with Dave 2-3 years - it transpired that its power supply was faulty (a capacitor, I think). In any event, I hope the issue with yours isn't too serious. You probably know that Dave holds all the parts to fix pretty much anything... apart from the main circuit boards I believe.

But at least you're in the US - if I had to ship mine across to Dave, it would cost ~$500 in shipping alone!

Good luck!

Mani.