0.01% is out of stock, although we have a few that just need a little rework by our assembly house.
0.05% is close to be out of stock.
But we still have good stock of the 0.02% version, will not start the next batch of boards until a little more of the current stock is sold....
I'm also considering combining the 0.01% and 0.02% in a -12 version, to simplify stock management....
This is interesting.
I can hear low level information and trailing of sounds that are not present on buffered outputs. Sound-stage deepens quite a bit with speakers too.
The buffered output does nothing wrong, but it glosses over things, at least on my system.
For me it is a night and day difference.
Just found out about this DAC
Hi all,
I've just found out about the DAM 1012 DAC. This is very exciting stuff! I''m already planning to build a DAC + headphones amp system based on the DAM 1012.
Is it appropriate to post my build plan here for critique, or should I start a new thread in the Digital Source forum?
Thanks Søren for creating this awesome DAC for the DIY world, and everyone who's contributed in this thread
Hi all,
I've just found out about the DAM 1012 DAC. This is very exciting stuff! I''m already planning to build a DAC + headphones amp system based on the DAM 1012.
Is it appropriate to post my build plan here for critique, or should I start a new thread in the Digital Source forum?
Thanks Søren for creating this awesome DAC for the DIY world, and everyone who's contributed in this thread
Thanks for the link. I didnt know "Balanced inputs are inherently noisier than unbalanced inputs by a large margin" according to Douglas Self.
I was always told it was the other way around with balanced reducing noise over unbalanced but this guy seems to know his stuff about internal noise of the balanced circuits. Or does he?
Attachments
Last edited:
Helps if you read more than the bullet points. The comparison was between a very basic NE5332 balanced stage and a ne5332 unbalanced stage. At the end of the chapter the self compares a number of variants which are closer to what the hypex and dam uses and these are between 0.5 and 1.6db quieter than the SE line stage referred to in the summary.
It's always an idea to read the whole chapter rather than just cherry picking the bits you think support your argument.
It's always an idea to read the whole chapter rather than just cherry picking the bits you think support your argument.
Last edited:
Yes, but if you have a closer look you see that he needs to use 4 stages of the superior Op amps in parallel to achieve this numbers to beat a simple SE input build with the "very basic NE5332". If you do the same efforts for SE it gains its advance again.
Last edited:
Plus with balanced you've got all that extra circuitry. And the circuitry is a bunch of opamps.
Unless you need the external noise rejection that balanced can provide its not going to be a better solution.
Oh, unless the equipment you are connecting has crappy ground design. Then you might find balanced is better. But then it's just covering up bad design.
Most of the noise comes from the Johnson noise of 4x 10k resistors used in the basic balanced circuit. Show me the 10k resistors in the hypex input stage or the dam output stages. The DAM uses 10R resistors. The Johnson noise of a 10r is 30dBu lower than that of a 10k resistor. The quad and dual opamp buffers - which are input buffers Btw not output buffers, use 820R resistors which have Johnson noise 19dBu higher than the 10r.
Do you still want to argue about 14dB benefit to SE?
Any I'll take Bruno Putzeys recommendation that his products perform best with balanced inputs. If you want to argue about the benefits you can take it up with Bruno or Jan Peter. I suspect Bruno has a clue or two about the products he designs.
Do you still want to argue about 14dB benefit to SE?
Any I'll take Bruno Putzeys recommendation that his products perform best with balanced inputs. If you want to argue about the benefits you can take it up with Bruno or Jan Peter. I suspect Bruno has a clue or two about the products he designs.
I was speaking of inputs, so the DAM side ins not the problem.
Douglas Self knows about the Johnson noise of the 10k input resistors
He spend several pages to explain that you need high input resistance for good CMRR and how to modify the design to get around the noise. Simple buffering was not enought. As result you see that you need quite an effort to achieve noise-wise the same performance as with the straight forward implementation of the SE input, if you do not want to destroy the benefits of the balanced input.
If your hypex, Jan and Bruno has implemented it similarly well, fine.
I bet most of the manufactures did not do such an effort on the balanced inputs.
Douglas Self knows about the Johnson noise of the 10k input resistors
He spend several pages to explain that you need high input resistance for good CMRR and how to modify the design to get around the noise. Simple buffering was not enought. As result you see that you need quite an effort to achieve noise-wise the same performance as with the straight forward implementation of the SE input, if you do not want to destroy the benefits of the balanced input.
If your hypex, Jan and Bruno has implemented it similarly well, fine.
I bet most of the manufactures did not do such an effort on the balanced inputs.
I know you know
The ucd180 has an instrumentation amp configuration with a lm4562 used as a differential buffer. maybe not Selfs fully tweaked config but not nearly as bad as the basic buffer.
Of course you can tweak either design, but it is a bit silly saying look see what doug self says - balanced is always worse than single ended. It depends on implementation. My amps work best with fully balanced inputs - maybe the dam is a little worse using balanced but it's swings and round abouts. Fortunately I got over audiophillia nervosa years ago, so I can live with that.
The ucd180 has an instrumentation amp configuration with a lm4562 used as a differential buffer. maybe not Selfs fully tweaked config but not nearly as bad as the basic buffer.
Of course you can tweak either design, but it is a bit silly saying look see what doug self says - balanced is always worse than single ended. It depends on implementation. My amps work best with fully balanced inputs - maybe the dam is a little worse using balanced but it's swings and round abouts. Fortunately I got over audiophillia nervosa years ago, so I can live with that.
Noise level you talking about is negligible. DAM output noisefloor is at -140dB level, noise induced in interconnect is also very low. But first of all even significant noise is not a reson why different type of DAM's output sounds different.
the point is:
- OPAMP uses NFB which results with Time Intermodulation Distortions - somthing similar to what you are trying to cope with digital filters - time smearing, ringing.
- OPAMP contains TENS of transistors. IMO no matter if tube or transistor - I wouldn't like to have SO MANY active elements in my signal path.
- IMHO *REAL* balanced source (like eg two DAMs in mono mode) makes sense only in case of fully balanced amplifier design otherwise you add two stages for balancing and then for unbalancing that, no doubt, will affect SQ in bad way.
spzzzzkt, you are dealing with very subtle (for some maybe not so subtle) differences in SQ between different FIR filters but you refuse (or can't detect - correct me if I am wrong) pretty significant difference between SE and BAL output. Maybe this is confusing for some of us.
the point is:
- OPAMP uses NFB which results with Time Intermodulation Distortions - somthing similar to what you are trying to cope with digital filters - time smearing, ringing.
- OPAMP contains TENS of transistors. IMO no matter if tube or transistor - I wouldn't like to have SO MANY active elements in my signal path.
- IMHO *REAL* balanced source (like eg two DAMs in mono mode) makes sense only in case of fully balanced amplifier design otherwise you add two stages for balancing and then for unbalancing that, no doubt, will affect SQ in bad way.
spzzzzkt, you are dealing with very subtle (for some maybe not so subtle) differences in SQ between different FIR filters but you refuse (or can't detect - correct me if I am wrong) pretty significant difference between SE and BAL output. Maybe this is confusing for some of us.
Interesting post on HA... Which condemns SE connections on high end gear as audiophoolery...
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=96688
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=96688
I don't know why you guys care so much about how my system is hooked up?
I don't give a crap what anyone else does with theirs, nor what they listen to on it!. If it's an issue for you I suggest you get a life.
I'll let you in on a secret. I bought the DAM because I wanted a straight forward DAC that I could stick in a Hammond case, connect up to two digital inputs, and use as a preamp. The fact it was well designed and didn't require the rats nest of add-on to even make a sound was a bonus. I'm down sizing from pass aleph p1.7 and D1v3. Basically if the DAM sounds better than the NAD M51 I'd been considering buying instead -which it does - then I'm happy. Don't confuse me with someone who is sweating over the last detail,. And don't think I'm doing the filter expect for myself. It is more work for me to post them up than not - and if the crap keeps on I will stop posting them. Get over it.
I don't give a crap what anyone else does with theirs, nor what they listen to on it!. If it's an issue for you I suggest you get a life.
I'll let you in on a secret. I bought the DAM because I wanted a straight forward DAC that I could stick in a Hammond case, connect up to two digital inputs, and use as a preamp. The fact it was well designed and didn't require the rats nest of add-on to even make a sound was a bonus. I'm down sizing from pass aleph p1.7 and D1v3. Basically if the DAM sounds better than the NAD M51 I'd been considering buying instead -which it does - then I'm happy. Don't confuse me with someone who is sweating over the last detail,. And don't think I'm doing the filter expect for myself. It is more work for me to post them up than not - and if the crap keeps on I will stop posting them. Get over it.
From my experimentation with your filters i came to the conclusion, that the 'backbone' of the sound doesn't change from unbuffered to buffered. So in that sense your filters should translate nicely on other people systems (all they should care for, really). I for one am really grateful for what you are doing.
Now it gets really confusing. Taking facts out of context and present them so that they serve one’s purpose to prove some personal likings or dislikings cannot be called proof in any way. We rather should call it then what it is: personal opinion which means nothing more than something that cannot be compared to anything and then it’s pretty useless for general interest . But even that’s o.k. as long as we call it what it is and stick with it till the end and don’t jump levels whenever it serves our purpose which we often present wrongly as ‘facts’.
Of course it will attract people’s interest that will lead to questions about how posted results can be put into a more general context so that everybody can understand better how to use something (filters or balanced connections or what not) and make a logical connection to one’s own system. If that’s not an accepted part of why we post things then the purpose of posting is misunderstood. Questions and critical discussions are an integral part of ‘posting’ . The system where these filters are tested and fine- tuned serves naturally as a reference point no matter how we might think about this fact and that's the only reason why it could be of any public interest what everybody uses in one's private little Idaho. I think it has a very high influence on filter tweaking because it’s not the measurement but what we finally hear which we like or not and will use or not use.
Of course it will attract people’s interest that will lead to questions about how posted results can be put into a more general context so that everybody can understand better how to use something (filters or balanced connections or what not) and make a logical connection to one’s own system. If that’s not an accepted part of why we post things then the purpose of posting is misunderstood. Questions and critical discussions are an integral part of ‘posting’ . The system where these filters are tested and fine- tuned serves naturally as a reference point no matter how we might think about this fact and that's the only reason why it could be of any public interest what everybody uses in one's private little Idaho. I think it has a very high influence on filter tweaking because it’s not the measurement but what we finally hear which we like or not and will use or not use.