Digital, but not by the numbers

[qusp]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

One pointless post an absurd thread doth not make. Please keep this on-topic Julf - cross examination of Charles on aspects of sigma-delta theory most certainly is OT. Start another thread if you really want to engage in a willy-wanging contest.

but I thought it was R2R?



though it could of course be some unknown industrial R2R 16bit dac... I suppose? hard to tell with so little detail

[qusp]

marce, dont worry about it, I think abrax is maybe one of the few that isnt clear on the obvious insider knowledge of this area, or was simply dangling a carrot =)

[abraxalito]

What was R2R? Charles thinks his DAC's R2R but he's mistaken on that because Philips use a neat little trick called 'Continuous Calibration' to set the weights of individual current sources. This isn't compatible with a resistor-based ladder architecture.

The industrial ladder DAC isn't unknown any more, though I think Cees still scratches off the markings. Its voltage out, and Charles' is current-out, as is mine.

[Charles]

There is no oversampling taking place in the Tera-Player.

Every digital volume control decreases volume by calculation and the lower the volume, the fewer the bits that contain the remaining signal. Full resolution is obtained at full volume.

The digital volume control in the Tera-Player works and sounds very good, else I would have chosen different means for volume control.

It is not my fault that sigma-delta DACs don't sound good, I would be happy if they would. They may be considered a good idea that just turned out bad. And now a whole industry with bad ears is creating stuff for people with bad ears. Please take this as my very subjective experience of the matter.

IMO, when quoting the true resolution of a sigma-delta DAC, always the resolution of the output stage should be quoted, ie. 1 bit, 2 bit or maybe up to 6 bit in case of the ESS Sabre DAC (which are damn many bits for a sigma-delta DAC).

Speaking of 24-bits or even 32-bits with sigma-delta DACs some other term should be used, here are some suggestions: Noise-o-lution, Fake-o-lution, Dream-o-lution, Mareting-o-lution, Non-Timbre-o-lution, Headache-o-lution, Digititis-o-lution, Artific-o-lution, not-suited-for-music-o-lution ... something like that ...

Charles

[Julf]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

You really are getting the hang of those strawmen now Not my meaning, what I meant was :

Do you know how delta-sigma actually works? Have you ever heard of pulse density modulation?

That's willy-wanging.

Clearer now?

Not really. If you look at the latest posting by Charles, the one that states "IMO, when quoting the true resolution of a sigma-delta DAC, always the resolution of the output stage should be quoted, ie. 1 bit, 2 bit or maybe up to 6 bit in case of the ESS Sabre DAC (which are damn many bits for a sigma-delta DAC)", do you still think my (serious) question is not justified?

[Julf]

Originally Posted by Charles

Every digital volume control decreases volume by calculation and the lower the volume, the fewer the bits that contain the remaining signal. Full resolution is obtained at full volume.

And what is the full resolution of the volume control in the Tera-Player?

IMO, when quoting the true resolution of a sigma-delta DAC, always the resolution of the output stage should be quoted, ie. 1 bit, 2 bit or maybe up to 6 bit in case of the ESS Sabre DAC (which are damn many bits for a sigma-delta DAC).

But do you agree that independent of the output stage of a delta-sigma DAC being 1, 2, 6 or 27 bits, even a 1-bit delta-sgma DAC can achieve a resolution that is more than 16 bits (resolution here defined as "with an ability to resolve amplitude differences smaller than 1/2^16 of full scale)?

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by Julf

Not really.

Yes, really.

If you look at the latest posting by Charles, the one that states "IMO, when quoting the true resolution of a sigma-delta DAC, always the resolution of the output stage should be quoted, ie. 1 bit, 2 bit or maybe up to 6 bit in case of the ESS Sabre DAC (which are damn many bits for a sigma-delta DAC)", do you still think my (serious) question is not justified?

Irrelevant. If you want to explain something to Charles that he's misunderstood, that wouldn't be OT. But willy-wanging remains willy-wanging.

[qusp]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

What was R2R? Charles thinks his DAC's R2R but he's mistaken on that because Philips use a neat little trick called 'Continuous Calibration' to set the weights of individual current sources. This isn't compatible with a resistor-based ladder architecture.

The industrial ladder DAC isn't unknown any more, though I think Cees still scratches off the markings. Its voltage out, and Charles' is current-out, as is mine.

hey you need to learn to recognize my facetious comments, sorry forgot the smiley

[abraxalito]

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification

[Julf]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

Yes, really.

No, not really.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant, according to you.

If you want to explain something to Charles that he's misunderstood, that wouldn't be OT. But willy-wanging remains willy-wanging.

It is willy-wanging if you say it is willy-wanging. But I feel it is totally valid and called for to ask, in all seriousness, based on his statements, if Charles actually understands how delta-sigma and pulse-density modulation works.

You might disagree, but this is a public forum. If you have to resort to pejorative terms like "willy-wanging", that is your choice.