Proven by one set up
That is not evidence in my world and has nothing to do with proof in any world. It even worked nicely stacked before.
I thought you had scientific training Patrick and would know better than to "prove" anything from a single subjective observation that the experimenter is even reluctant to reproduce afraid of ruining the recently rediscovered audio nirvana
sabre has not even close to 10mA, try more like 3.9mA p-p, have you used this dac chip? such a difference would force a completely incorrect design if you had. with careful layout radiated noise is not a big deal, just as with most modern dacs and honestly modern environments these days which contain DSP, CPU, wifi etc. high transient, high slew signals need proper treatment, but to extend this to claiming a general flaw.... if its such a minefield how is it its been used with high performance, but low PSRR circuits to achieve -113 THD+N? this would seem difficult no?
bemused layout is far from optimal, but he knows that. particularly those huge long battery leads leading straight to SEN/CEN. looking at the picture the thousand wires already look like visible radiation solar corona =). the BIII forces this kind of layout, so many modules.
Last edited:
Proven by one set up
That is not evidence in my world and has nothing to do with proof in any world. It even worked nicely stacked before.
I thought you had scientific training Patrick and would know better than to "prove" anything from a single subjective observation that the experimenter is even reluctant to reproduce afraid of ruining the recently rediscovered audio nirvana
yes, perhaps replicated, or maybe you could push it to 'confirmed by at least one' would have been a better choice of words.
Just pulling the leg of somebody that claim to carefully choose his wording
P.S. Replicated what by who? I still do not understand the "at least" part of the statement
yeah I figured =) its all give and take innit? I know Patrick can take it as good as he can give it, provided youve done your homework before posting a correction hehe if not.... well...
I was just suggesting an alternative wording under the circumstances, 'at least one' was Patricks wording, not mine.
there are 2 ways to read 'at least one' in English. it can mean 'definitely one that I know of, but maybe more', or it can mean 'at least there is one', which is more minimizing. the first way suggests that there could be more, kind of adding weight to the one so it seems more, the second is kind of making the one smaller, saying 'at least there is one' is stating that something you agree with is rare or new, but you know about one and are maybe expecting more. only Patrick can tell us which of those 2 inflections he meant
I was just suggesting an alternative wording under the circumstances, 'at least one' was Patricks wording, not mine.
there are 2 ways to read 'at least one' in English. it can mean 'definitely one that I know of, but maybe more', or it can mean 'at least there is one', which is more minimizing. the first way suggests that there could be more, kind of adding weight to the one so it seems more, the second is kind of making the one smaller, saying 'at least there is one' is stating that something you agree with is rare or new, but you know about one and are maybe expecting more. only Patrick can tell us which of those 2 inflections he meant
Last edited:
There are academics (or otherwise known as scientists) around who has endless time.
So they try to figure out everything by lots of controlled experiments.
And then they put these experimental results together to make a theoretical model.
Except that some times, they forget some very practical things that will swamp their predictions.
I, as a practicing engineer, do not have that luxury.
I trust my instincts (or someone call that experience), find a solution that gives the result I what, and move on to the next.
But then that is why I have time to write and apply for some 200 patents, many of them already granted.
Different approaches. And I think the world can live with both in co-existence.
Patrick
So they try to figure out everything by lots of controlled experiments.
And then they put these experimental results together to make a theoretical model.
Except that some times, they forget some very practical things that will swamp their predictions.
I, as a practicing engineer, do not have that luxury.
I trust my instincts (or someone call that experience), find a solution that gives the result I what, and move on to the next.
But then that is why I have time to write and apply for some 200 patents, many of them already granted.
Different approaches. And I think the world can live with both in co-existence.
Patrick
>There are academics (or otherwise known as scientists) around who has endless time.
Believe me, few have endless time.
>So they try to figure out everything by lots of controlled experiments.
And then they put these experimental results together to make a theoretical model.
Then they test the model experimentally and if it holds they have advanced knowledge.
>Except that some times, they forget some very practical things that will swamp their predictions.
Happen for engineers to. But then bridges may crumple.
>But then that is why I have time to write and apply for some 200 patents, many of them already granted.
Patents are examined, not peer reviewed. No sport.
>Different approaches. And I think the world can live with both in co-existence.
Certainly
Believe me, few have endless time.
>So they try to figure out everything by lots of controlled experiments.
And then they put these experimental results together to make a theoretical model.
Then they test the model experimentally and if it holds they have advanced knowledge.
>Except that some times, they forget some very practical things that will swamp their predictions.
Happen for engineers to. But then bridges may crumple.
>But then that is why I have time to write and apply for some 200 patents, many of them already granted.
Patents are examined, not peer reviewed. No sport.
>Different approaches. And I think the world can live with both in co-existence.
Certainly
If running balanced and i have one +-18v PSU, should i just run +18v to positive phase and -18v to negative phase? and then paralleled over both channels?
Also, approx how much current would in total can i expect (per phase) if running 6x SK170's in CEN config?
Is it just six times IDSS which is TOTAL current draw per phase in that config?
Also, approx how much current would in total can i expect (per phase) if running 6x SK170's in CEN config?
Is it just six times IDSS which is TOTAL current draw per phase in that config?
A +-18v supply is twin supply, which i thought would work. Too bad that you need two of them, since i have no room for that.
And sorry, if i don't have time reading through 26 pages of text.
26 pages? well its in the build manual, BOM and schematic on the first page too....
its also not calling for a bipolar supply....
it needs a 17-18vdc floating supply for each phase of each channel, so 4 in total
its also not calling for a bipolar supply....
it needs a 17-18vdc floating supply for each phase of each channel, so 4 in total
Last edited:
still working on it
I have built this sen circuit using P2P. I also still have problems with getting it to operate with both channels connected. I am using PCM1702s and the original circuit design. Must be in the player as If one channel is connected, it operates fine(the other channel with a 1K on it). When I connect both, the working channel get's "jittery" and the new channel has high speed modulated signal wave and half the amplitude of the working one. Have not put in the stopper yet. Thought it would be easier but still working on it.
I have built this sen circuit using P2P. I also still have problems with getting it to operate with both channels connected. I am using PCM1702s and the original circuit design. Must be in the player as If one channel is connected, it operates fine(the other channel with a 1K on it). When I connect both, the working channel get's "jittery" and the new channel has high speed modulated signal wave and half the amplitude of the working one. Have not put in the stopper yet. Thought it would be easier but still working on it.
