I just gave you a suggestion in return (to your suggestion), use it to your benefit or peril, your choice.
For detectability of the earbrain I have my doubts. But it is special and magic
I'm sure that many who installs them are very happy - and I suppose that's maybe whats counts in the end We are so easily fooled. Which I think put some responsibility on the "dealers"...//
I dont think the claim is that there is an impact -140 dB down in music but rather that the close in phase noise creates a timing error. Yes, the triangle comes a little late in Mahlers 4th. Or the sense of acoustics is disturbed by PN.
But I'm quite sure that Andrea cant present a technical/biological viable explanation on how/why it has an impact - I mean from PN -> DA conversion -> earbrain -> experience.
It seems Andrea doesn't understand what happens with PN in the DA process - we have had dis discussion before It does not create a timing error on the analog side but manifest itself as distorsion. Quite low level also as syn08 describes.
//
But I'm quite sure that Andrea cant present a technical/biological viable explanation on how/why it has an impact - I mean from PN -> DA conversion -> earbrain -> experience.
It seems Andrea doesn't understand what happens with PN in the DA process - we have had dis discussion before
It does not create a timing error on the analog side but manifest itself as distorsion. Quite low level also as syn08 describes.//
Last edited:
I would question what’s the point of feeding a DAC chip with such a low phase noise of whatever type, when the clock paths and distribution on the chip has a much larger (unspecified) additive phase noise. Once again, these are audio devices, not some MMICs intended for radar or missile guidance applications.
But as you say, selling illusions is ok if it makes people happy. Now only if Andrea wouldn’t try to fool everybody with his marketing messages. Just STFU and mind your own business, like, again, others on this forum do.
But as you say, selling illusions is ok if it makes people happy. Now only if Andrea wouldn’t try to fool everybody with his marketing messages. Just STFU and mind your own business, like, again, others on this forum do.
Although it is not benefit to DAC in audio, it still better than yours.
Better in what way? I believe that a decent quality 4-SMD footprint oscillator is better than Andrea's clock from a SYSTEM standpoint.
Even if this crazy level of phase noise were relevant to audio, the additive phase noise of the buffer and distribution in the converter itself most likely dominates as syn08 points out. The simple SMD XO is cheaper, smaller, lower power consumption, lower EMI, and can be located closer to the device it's clocking. It is absolutely a better option for a real world audio DAC.
Andrea has done well to optimize his oscillator, but it almost certainly has no audible value if we are being honest. It's the same academic pursuit as the 0.0000001% THD chasers that people here criticize. Maybe it gives a warm fuzzy feeling to the user, too.
Last edited:
If yours better, please prove it with measurement. I believe Syn08's is not better. No matter if it is not benefit for audio. Syn08 also built amplifier with 0.0001% THD. But I never seen anyone built amplifier with 0.0000001% THD. Although if you are being sarcastic, you must still use a fact.
I think you are not one of the speaker guys but may be you know some theories. So here is a question....
We know that speaker distortion is a few magnitudes higher than amplifier distortion... When we "listen" to the amplifier we listen the output through speaker or headphone drivers. Let's assume that we can hear small difference in distortion in amplifier...
Is there a possible mechanism where this small amplifier distortion actually triggers "bigger distortion" in speakers proportionally?
I have no opinion about NP , but JC lives in my ignore file together with heavyweights
such as Indra and bimo, which makes it clear what I think of him.
In a neighbour post, someone proposed a composer bonus for hearing ability.
That's nice since I got it timely from unquestionable sources that Ludwig van B.
commented very favourable about my own hearing ability. They say he got
really loud in his appreciation and if gifted with my ears, he concluded, he
could have created real master works.
Gerhard
No, the clock is the only place where noise gets integrated, so it's the only place which can generate large 1/f phase noise. Reasonable noise in the distribution circuit will move the noise floor but not the 1/f slope.
Whether or not that matters is another question.
I doubt that's what happens. IIUC Earl Geddes says it's the type of distortion, and level would also play a part.
Idea is very good.
Wiseness and finesse
This forum thread is seriously hearing impaired, on average, as well. The best compositions here (which involve assuming an authorship title, like "Andreas oscillator") by the last hundred pages, are only those using marketing language and callousness thug attitudes. This is worrisome to be permitted and to be contended about it. I propose to analyze it critically in full extent, including the authorship.
In this sense, I would propose to contest Andrea technical merits and authorship on the matter: his original contribution to Qz-oscillator was only to bring his rubber strips around the Qz. That is it, in full, and the technical value for this gimmick is almost null for any others (DIY or professional or rest of the world). The rest of merits for what few here wrongfully call "Andreas oscillator", is in fact just a sum merit of all who helped him here in DIY forums and eventually what he found in the time-nuts place.
According to Science Journals: editorial policies | Science | AAAS, in section General Policies/Authorship, Andrea did not fulfill the authorship conditions, in my opinion.
Let's ask a competently qualified 5-judge team here, to analyze and decide by vote.
I propose Syn08, TNT and Chris for this team.
Andea's Oscillator is not an academic paper. It involves proprietary research which is not for publication. That is true of much work that even academics do today since grant funding is harder to get than it used to be. Private collaboration with companies sometimes leads to very sparse publications only intended to summarize work done, not to reveal all the details. Some kind of publication is of course needed for CVs, even if it reads more like an advertisement.
The above is not to say that Andrea is motivated by commercial interests, only that he may wish to hold some of what he has learned for himself private for now simply because it is his preference to do so, and or perhaps because it is the preference of his collaborator.
The above is not to say that Andrea is motivated by commercial interests, only that he may wish to hold some of what he has learned for himself private for now simply because it is his preference to do so, and or perhaps because it is the preference of his collaborator.
Last edited:
And why would you care about it? His USP is only a rubber strapped Qz and unlimited budget for 0.001% ladder resistors and for "some exotic" tools to measure -160dBc at 10Hz
Please go back re-do your 101 RF class.
Btw, do you know where this is? I must join you. Same, Andreas orders. Yes, ssht, he found me too. I failed all RF classes by him... history included. Also I have same attitude problem as you: cannot stay humble in front of him.
P.S. Gerhard, sorry, did you told him about Time-Nuts? Why? Yeah, hmm, I know, we all do mistakes.
Wow, you talk about Time-nuts like you was the founder and then you think John Miles is the singer and you don't know who is Bruce Griffiths.
Needless to call Gerhard to the rescue, your credibility is lower than the THD of the amps designed by syn08.
I do not care if anyone can hear distortion below 0.01% and I'm not feel intimidated if someone claim it.
But I appreciate if someone make better design although it is below hearing threshold of average human that scientist knew. So, I appreciate Andrea's oscillator. It proved by measurement. I'm not jealous.....
You have got the point.
You are not jealous, but someone else is.
So much so that he tried to do better but he failed miserably, by his own measurements.
And as I have already said I had no doubt.
I dont think the claim is that there is an impact -140 dB down in music but rather that the close in phase noise creates a timing error. Yes, the triangle comes a little late in Mahlers 4th. Or the sense of acoustics is disturbed by PN.
But I'm quite sure that Andrea cant present a technical/biological viable explanation on how/why it has an impact - I mean from PN -> DA conversion -> earbrain -> experience.
It seems Andrea doesn't understand what happens with PN in the DA process - we have had dis discussion before
//
That's very curious.
For those who have the cult of measurements your DAC is fine, but then you've been complaining for months (not you only) that its sound quality is "source dependent".
The measurements failed or it's just your imagination.
Better if you clarify your ideas before posting the next comment.
This one is to find the answer why some people can hear that low distortion difference in amplifiers.
Can we hear below 20Hz? I think textbook will not say that no human can hear below 20Hz. But... Low frequencies may generate audible distortion in woofers such that we can hear the higher frequency harmonics of the original signal...
Case: I could easily hear files that supposed to be tones of 10Hz, 12Hz, 14Hz, 16Hz, 18Hz, 20Hz. There was no sign of broken woofer but I wanted to test the theory that a 10Hz signal can "trigger" higher frequencies that are audible so I called my wife and son and we did a blind listening test. My wife could hear 20Hz, my son couldn't. Conclusion: I don't know yet but my ears are still better than my wife and son.
The above is some kind of analogy that can be used to find the "theory" regarding why small difference in amp distortion can be perceived.
Idea is very good.
Wiseness and finesse
This forum thread is seriously hearing impaired, on average, as well. The best compositions here (which involve assuming an authorship title, like "Andreas oscillator") by the last hundred pages, are only those using marketing language and callousness thug attitudes. This is worrisome to be permitted and to be contended about it. I propose to analyze it critically in full extent, including the authorship.
In this sense, I would propose to contest Andrea technical merits and authorship on the matter: his original contribution to Qz-oscillator was only to bring his rubber strips around the Qz. That is it, in full, and the technical value for this gimmick is almost null for any others (DIY or professional or rest of the world). The rest of merits for what few here wrongfully call "Andreas oscillator", is in fact just a sum merit of all who helped him here in DIY forums and eventually what he found in the time-nuts place.
According to Science Journals: editorial policies | Science | AAAS, in section General Policies/Authorship, Andrea did not fulfill the authorship conditions, in my opinion.
Let's ask a competently qualified 5-judge team here, to analyze and decide by vote.
I propose Syn08, TNT and Chris for this team.
That goes way too far. I don't think that you are qualified to judge the quality of
the oscillators, nor could anybody of your proposed team design one at this
phase noise level. This would have been formulated much more explicit if the
two of us hadn't had a beer together and some fun.
The oscillators of Andrea and his Co are absolutely state of the art with regard
to phase noise. The removal of the oven and maybe varicaps for locking are
intended and agreed upon by the kit builder crowd. They add nothing to
this application.
The phase noise IS on par with Wenzel, the crystal limits the performance.
And Wenzel is not the goal to beat, it's Oscilloquarz or the brandnew
resonators from Morion or some English company.
And the only one who constantly talks about rubber tape is Syn08.
I have seen a lot of Andrea's oscs, but rubber is not on the partlist.
Andrea does not run a business. All he did was organizing two group buys,
with loss at least on the first one. We have sold some hard-to-get parts
to each other, that all was true own buying price + postage.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.