ULAS, where did you go?
I was reading about your jitter tests here
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread/t-85283.html
but all of your figures are now dead links and DACtester was no longer available for download!
If anyone has a copy of DACtester, could they link it here so that this utility isn't forever lost?
thanks.
I was reading about your jitter tests here
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread/t-85283.html
but all of your figures are now dead links and DACtester was no longer available for download!
If anyone has a copy of DACtester, could they link it here so that this utility isn't forever lost?
thanks.
Re: ULAS, where did you go?
Is this the same DACtester?
http://didnt.doit.wisc.edu/audio/dddac1543/00_not _used/DACTester.zip
drlava said:
Is this the same DACtester?
http://didnt.doit.wisc.edu/audio/dddac1543/00_not _used/DACTester.zip
drlava said:
Ulas was excommunicated because he didn’t show proper respect to the clock mongers and kit peddlers who use this forum to promote their business interests.
As far as I know, every version of DACtester posted on this forum contained intentional errors. Ulas reasoned, because nearly every design posted here had errors, why should DACtester be any different? With each release he increased the number and severity of the errors yet, aside from the very obvious, random startup error in the first version posted, no one ever noticed. As he always said, the diyAudio Experts don’t know diddlysquat about anything digital.
The most recent version with the ‘D’ suffix is a tribute to dither. The digital audio experts say dither is a good thing and, even though it can amount to over 12dB of added noise, no one here has every complained about it or even noticed it. So, DACtester randomly adds random noise to random calculations and functions. If random noise is good for digital audio, it ought to be good for digital computer programs, too. Call it Ulas’ revenge.
I am very sad to hear that, because he was obviously a good programmer, and one that belieived that repeatable measurements could be used to help advance the art.
It's funny you say that about his program, however, because a search here about DACtester reveals NO discussion along those lines. Can you link to a relevant thread where DACtester was shown to introduce errors?
Too many non-blind tests occurr in the audio field, and too much money is made based on those 'reviews' of these super-components. Even the studio recordings were not made with such exotic components, yet the testers and reviewers are overcome with emotion at the difference in sound when they are used in the playback.
I am new to this forum, hopefully I will not discover that dissenters are silenced/shunned away as apparently this man was.
It's funny you say that about his program, however, because a search here about DACtester reveals NO discussion along those lines. Can you link to a relevant thread where DACtester was shown to introduce errors?
Too many non-blind tests occurr in the audio field, and too much money is made based on those 'reviews' of these super-components. Even the studio recordings were not made with such exotic components, yet the testers and reviewers are overcome with emotion at the difference in sound when they are used in the playback.
I am new to this forum, hopefully I will not discover that dissenters are silenced/shunned away as apparently this man was.
The truth be told, Ulas is a colleague and I am the creator of DACtester and JitterDither. I wrote them for my own use. It was Ulas’ idea to post crippled versions on this forum as an experiment to see if any of the assorted digital experts, analog gurus, and audio golden ears here would notice and be able to diagnose simple software problems. I didn’t like the idea at first but after I read some of the nonsense being spewed out by the self-proclaimed digital experts I thought it would be fun: But only if the introduced errors were obvious yet benign and the version numbers indicated beta status.
The early versions of JitterDither and DACtester had the same startup problem and although the source for JitterDither was posted, no one here was able to diagnose and fix the problem. A few of the more computer-savvy users discovered a workaround by running the programs in compatibility mode but the pompous jerks, the ones who think they know everything about everything and say Ulas doesn’t know what he is talking about, didn’t have a clue.
Even though my email address is on the ‘about’ page, no one has ever contacted me regarding either program and only one person has ever contacted Ulas to ask for a copy of DACtester. From that we assumed no one was using either program. If that’s the case, what’s antisocial about posting crippled software that no one uses? And who accepts beta release software from an unknown source on the Internet and expects perfection? What’s antisocial are those who have happily used DACtester for years and never bothered to thank me or Ulas for writing it and posting it on this forum.
There is no relevant discussion because either no one was using the software or those who were didn’t notice the very obvious programming errors. If you haven’t noticed any errors and the program’s performance meets you expectations, then there is no problem.
The early versions of JitterDither and DACtester had the same startup problem and although the source for JitterDither was posted, no one here was able to diagnose and fix the problem. A few of the more computer-savvy users discovered a workaround by running the programs in compatibility mode but the pompous jerks, the ones who think they know everything about everything and say Ulas doesn’t know what he is talking about, didn’t have a clue.
pinkmouse said:
Even though my email address is on the ‘about’ page, no one has ever contacted me regarding either program and only one person has ever contacted Ulas to ask for a copy of DACtester. From that we assumed no one was using either program. If that’s the case, what’s antisocial about posting crippled software that no one uses? And who accepts beta release software from an unknown source on the Internet and expects perfection? What’s antisocial are those who have happily used DACtester for years and never bothered to thank me or Ulas for writing it and posting it on this forum.
drlava said:
There is no relevant discussion because either no one was using the software or those who were didn’t notice the very obvious programming errors. If you haven’t noticed any errors and the program’s performance meets you expectations, then there is no problem.
What kind of errors? I never used DACTester for anything other than a sine wave generator, and for that it worked just fine.jbokelman said:
And by "fine", I'd feed sine signals into DSP code, capture millions of samples of processed output, FFT the whole works and I've never seen any spurs or anything which indicate that DACTester is putting out a pure sine wave.
Mind you, I got the version I use directly from Ulas so it might be an uncrippled version.
I'm no expert here, so everyone feel free to correct me, but some errors (in the version I have, 0.2) might be:
as far as I can tell, he put a random sample repeat/delete every few seconds. This may be to poke fun at the asynchronous reclocking crowd.
The decibel level is pretty screwy. at 16bit, nothing shows up till -89 dB and around the low levels, the levels aren't accurate. Also, in the low level area, the setting should skip certain dB places because, for example, it isn't possible to generate a -94dBFS square signal at 16 bits. It either peaks at one level (-96dB) or two (-90dB) so the in-between ones could be eliminated. This is, unless the waveforms are calculated as floating point in the program until sent to the sound card. In that case there would be some minor differences between, say, -94 and -92dB when in the mono (summing) mode with asynchronous signals.
When in mono (summing) mode, the levels are halved so there is no clipping of the summed signal when, in my opinion, the waveform should be allowed to clip if two -0 to -6dB signals are added.
Others...? There must be something more serious I haven't tested the Duration section.
as far as I can tell, he put a random sample repeat/delete every few seconds. This may be to poke fun at the asynchronous reclocking crowd.
The decibel level is pretty screwy. at 16bit, nothing shows up till -89 dB and around the low levels, the levels aren't accurate. Also, in the low level area, the setting should skip certain dB places because, for example, it isn't possible to generate a -94dBFS square signal at 16 bits. It either peaks at one level (-96dB) or two (-90dB) so the in-between ones could be eliminated. This is, unless the waveforms are calculated as floating point in the program until sent to the sound card. In that case there would be some minor differences between, say, -94 and -92dB when in the mono (summing) mode with asynchronous signals.
When in mono (summing) mode, the levels are halved so there is no clipping of the summed signal when, in my opinion, the waveform should be allowed to clip if two -0 to -6dB signals are added.
Others...? There must be something more serious
I haven't tested the Duration section.
Why would an audiophile have any knowledge of computer programing ?
The argument give is a completely false ...the reason doctored software was posted as far as I can see was to decieve and miss dirrect. Most users would I imagine have ditched it after seeing it didn't work. Lets just hope there was nothing more malicious included in the buggedware.
I've had " discussions" in the past with ulas where I say that I use my ears to determine if it sounds good or not ...ulas on the other hand prefers test equipment ....I think that about sums up things. I can't remember the last time I used test equipment to listen to music !
The argument give is a completely false ...the reason doctored software was posted as far as I can see was to decieve and miss dirrect. Most users would I imagine have ditched it after seeing it didn't work. Lets just hope there was nothing more malicious included in the buggedware.
I've had " discussions" in the past with ulas where I say that I use my ears to determine if it sounds good or not ...ulas on the other hand prefers test equipment ....I think that about sums up things. I can't remember the last time I used test equipment to listen to music !
Must be a nice place to work where jbokelman and ulas work. both use the same sort and amount of respectless language to members here and feel clearly better than "the crowd" If we believe in conspirencies, I would suggest that Ulas hacked the account of jbokelman to tell the worls what he did with his dac tester software thingie.
The whole case is a bit silly, as said above here, the probably few users had obviously no appetite to use the software. The fact there were no complaints, is because no one is realy using it, except as sine wave generators. From those there are many on the WEB. I use one as well, to generate WAV files with all kind of signal forms, to test my DACs impementation (!) Thee is no use of testingthe DAC chip as such. there is nothing what can be changed here. For the rest use you ears
The whole case is a bit silly, as said above here, the probably few users had obviously no appetite to use the software. The fact there were no complaints, is because no one is realy using it, except as sine wave generators. From those there are many on the WEB. I use one as well, to generate WAV files with all kind of signal forms, to test my DACs impementation (!) Thee is no use of testingthe DAC chip as such. there is nothing what can be changed here. For the rest use you ears
gmarsh said:Mind you, I got the version I use directly from Ulas so it might be an uncrippled version.
Why don’t you check the version number? If it’s a beta release then it’s doctored. Why would anyone trust beta release software for serious product development and testing? The only software I trust is what I write myself or buy from trusted sources.
jbokelman said:
sounds quite paranoia to me..... And why would the software someone develops himself be without any flaw ? Even Microsoft is not able to.
On the other hand, software from Ulas hand is not be trusted. Is that what you say ?
So far, although requested, I have not seen any "trusted" version ( > 1.0) from your hand posted here? I assume there is no such thing than ? we talk and talk and see nothing other than the great revenge of Ulas, which obviously did not worked out, as no one was really interested in his bait ? Must be frustrating, won't you think
I tried the program, but on linux so I had no problem running it, but I thought it was a very boring program - listening to 1k in headphones is not the best way to spend a couple of hours! 
I do however find the thread extremely entertaining! I don't know much about Ulas, but I bet he gets a kick out of posting something mysterious and then watch how people react. The way he posts messages reminds me of the zero knowledge protocol - he knows a secret and does not want others to know it too, but only to make sure that we know he knows.
From the information he leaks from time to time I get the idea that he might actually be on to something, but I'm not sure what. I can understand why he dislikes the idea of reclocking with a free running clock, but what is his alternative? Does anyone have some of his schematics that are not only meant as a joke?
I do however find the thread extremely entertaining! I don't know much about Ulas, but I bet he gets a kick out of posting something mysterious and then watch how people react. The way he posts messages reminds me of the zero knowledge protocol - he knows a secret and does not want others to know it too, but only to make sure that we know he knows.
From the information he leaks from time to time I get the idea that he might actually be on to something, but I'm not sure what. I can understand why he dislikes the idea of reclocking with a free running clock, but what is his alternative? Does anyone have some of his schematics that are not only meant as a joke?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.