hi,
let me to share some of my comment, is all the hifi lovers use
Signal Analyzer,spectrum analyzer & distortaion measurement set to listen fr your hifi.
NOS sound more vocal, little better base & more human voice, although the test data was not good. My DAC was design in three mode,
NOS,
NOS + reclock
NOS + RE-clock+DF.
but finally that I choose was NOS, since nowsdays the CD disk & some of the pop music had too much HF, some of the HF was ultrasonic rubbish, unaudiable ringing. This will easy to cost your ears tired. NOS was more smooth, unless your equipment was very sofy sound, vintage may be will fit with the NOS + RE-clock+DF. otherwise, NOS,NOS + reclock will be your cup of tea.
NOS was quite easy to control, I U like the sound most linear but not to se the DF, I can told U the test method was use high 'K" impendence DAC output transformer with the NOS DAC, much distoration will improve.
trust your ear. not trust your test equipment. are not use the test equipment listen for the music.
this is my comment.
thx'
thomas
let me to share some of my comment, is all the hifi lovers use
Signal Analyzer,spectrum analyzer & distortaion measurement set to listen fr your hifi.
NOS sound more vocal, little better base & more human voice, although the test data was not good. My DAC was design in three mode,
NOS,
NOS + reclock
NOS + RE-clock+DF.
but finally that I choose was NOS, since nowsdays the CD disk & some of the pop music had too much HF, some of the HF was ultrasonic rubbish, unaudiable ringing. This will easy to cost your ears tired. NOS was more smooth, unless your equipment was very sofy sound, vintage may be will fit with the NOS + RE-clock+DF. otherwise, NOS,NOS + reclock will be your cup of tea.
NOS was quite easy to control, I U like the sound most linear but not to se the DF, I can told U the test method was use high 'K" impendence DAC output transformer with the NOS DAC, much distoration will improve.
trust your ear. not trust your test equipment. are not use the test equipment listen for the music.
this is my comment.
thx'
thomas
raikkonen said:yes, you're right...pick your poison is probably the best way to describe the problem...but, if the jitter is a problem that we can solve reclocking, oversampling can be useful and good, or not?
"[Meridian] 808 has the lowest jitter we have ever measured on a CD player: around 90 picoseconds, with the jitter spectrum held below 0.1Hz."
That should be of little consolation if Kusunoki Ryõhei is right about 1.35psec being maximum acceptable jitter in an 8X os, 20 bit DAC.
phn said:
Simply adding if is no defence against an accusation of peddling nonsense even if it is secondhand.
I am well aware of kusunoki. I probably even saw the articles in MJ while you were still pondering the probability of a flat earth.
His word may be God to you but the numbers will bear further analysis.
poobah said:
Sorry, but 256 DACs is not nearly enough. I'm kicking an idea around that would use 2048 2-bit DACs.
As for jitter, ZERO is not enough, either. The acclaimed and very expensive dCS Verona Master Clock actually dithers the clock to keep the PLL in the DAC bouncing around as it tries to lock onto an ever-changing reference clock. www.aslgroup.com/dcs/VeronaClockingPaper.pdf
And let's not forget asynchronous reclocking which generates lots of good jitter. As the diyAudio Experts tell us, it's not the amount of jitter but the frequency that counts.
rfbrw said:
I wouldn't know if it's nonsense or not. I though the "if" implied that. But so far you have shown absolutely zero communicative and social skills.
rfbrw said:
What does flat earth have to do with anything?
rfbrw said:
You make a lot of assumptions in life, don't you? That way you don't have to bother about what people actually say since you somehow know what they really mean.
I'm fully aware of that. And I know virtually zero about these things. Again, that "if" should have given that away.
rfbrw said:
I don't know what game you are playing.
We both know that those claims are disputed, as well as the ringing. Not the existence of ringing, which is a consequence of filters, but its alleged effect.
It seems the main reason these things remain more or less unsolved is that the engineers have decided oversampling is the way to go (which I do not question), the consequences be damned. Case in point: The engineers acknowledge the existence of ringing, but then leave it be because it's an inevitable consequence of filters.
I couldn't say if ringing has a sonic signature, as the critics claim. To be able to say anything about that I would first need to have an interest in these things. I don't. I'm on nobody's bandwagon when it comes to "digital sound reproduction."
At best I can only bring these things to the table. It's up to people to do whatever they want with them. But you have brought nothing to the thread. You are just sad.
As usual you are wrong. This time on two counts. Wrong about ringing and wrong that it was about ringing.
Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with a DSP textbook knows that it is the ringing that allows the reconstruction of the waveform as the sampled data approaches the Nyquist limit.
But it was not about ringing. It was that dubious 1.35 ps figure as regards 8x OS. Run the figures but I'll understand if you don't know how.
Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with a DSP textbook knows that it is the ringing that allows the reconstruction of the waveform as the sampled data approaches the Nyquist limit.
But it was not about ringing. It was that dubious 1.35 ps figure as regards 8x OS. Run the figures but I'll understand if you don't know how.
rfbrw said:
That was my point exactly when I wrote "consequence of filters."
rfbrw said:
I think everybody that has read this thread is aware of "that dubious 1.35 ps."
Sense and reason are evidently foreign concepts to you. That makes you a bore. Senseless and unreasonable people always are.
Analog filters will also duplicate the "ringing" when built with sufficient quality.
What is labeled as ringing is actually suppression of the image freq's.... It is not a fault, by product, or residual effect; it is the very point of it all.
You must learn the math... there is simply no understanding without it.
What is labeled as ringing is actually suppression of the image freq's.... It is not a fault, by product, or residual effect; it is the very point of it all.
You must learn the math... there is simply no understanding without it.
This is where I read about ringing and stuff: http://www.iar-80.com/page28.html
This is nothing new to you. But if you want to read previous pages, navigate in the address I just googled filter ringing CD and this was the first page to come up.
This is nothing new to you. But if you want to read previous pages, navigate in the address I just googled filter ringing CD and this was the first page to come up.
That appears to be very credible text phn... the needle on my BSometer did not even twitch.
In earlier pages he is a bit optimistic regarding the possible increases in resolution... only in so far as we don't really know the true accuracy of the original data stream. But, nothing he says is wrong... of what I read.
By the way, I'm not fighting with you.
In earlier pages he is a bit optimistic regarding the possible increases in resolution... only in so far as we don't really know the true accuracy of the original data stream. But, nothing he says is wrong... of what I read.
By the way, I'm not fighting with you.
Getting back to raikkonen's original post:
"tda1541 has a THD of about 0.05%
versus new type OS that have 0.0005%!!!
how is possible that it sounds better??is it really true??
i'd like to know it before to start my project..."
I guess the question one has to ask is, can anyone - I mean anyone - actually hear THD of 0.05%, let alone know what it sounds like? I know of no one who can claim that he can. Raikkonen if you are convinced you can hear this, you should be hanging upside down in a dark cave.
"tda1541 has a THD of about 0.05%
versus new type OS that have 0.0005%!!!
how is possible that it sounds better??is it really true??
i'd like to know it before to start my project..."
I guess the question one has to ask is, can anyone - I mean anyone - actually hear THD of 0.05%, let alone know what it sounds like? I know of no one who can claim that he can. Raikkonen if you are convinced you can hear this, you should be hanging upside down in a dark cave.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.