Digital, but not by the numbers

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
And I'm unwilling to waste an hour of my time to scour through a video when you can't even provide a summary or reference points in that video.

Indeed you are unwilling. I don't have an issue with that at all, as its a very informative video and it would seem its your loss that you didn't avail yourself of the opportunity. Who knows though, perhaps another day you'll have some free time for learning and have a quick peek ;)

Posting a link to a video without any additional comments is just a classic red herring and would not be accepted by any reputable academic or professional institution.

Good job this is just a hobby forum then innit?
 
I suggest we all step back, get our popcorn, and wait for abraxalito to present his ideas - no point in getting into a pointless argument about semantics unless he/she actually presents something worth spending mental energy on.

Indeed wise words from you Julf, couldn't agree more. But if its ideas you're after I suspect you might suffer disappointment - rather like DF96 seems to be heading for. This is more about real designs - the ideas were in the first post.
 
Why? I figured I would experiment with a thread rather than a blog post, just for variety.



What's the meaning of 'proper' here? :)

proper means minimal ground bounce for reliable operation, minimal EMC, and crosstalk for signal integrity, low noise, etc

that means solid ground plane or ground fill with stitching vias etc. Preferable 4 layer or more board with proper placement of surface mount bypass caps !!
 
Last edited:
His dac design breaks every engineering rule in the book. It can't possibly work properly ever !!

Wow, that's some compliment Trevor. Without even seeing the book I managed to transgress all the strictures? J.S. Bach eat your heart out.

Without a proper pcb design with ground plane it will have loads of ground bounce and EMC issues, let alone added noise and distortions

EMC could indeed be a problem but as its not being put in the market, there's no need for regulatory compliance. As regards your other complaints, they're not an issue for the sound or the rudimentary measurements I've so far made.

Sorry abaxilotto you'll have to do better than that. In this case the measurements will definitely confirm the poor performance of this design !

Which measurements would those be?
 
Trevor White said:
The new idea is in his blog.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that. It appears to be a hybrid digital filter, using delay lines and multiple DACs to achieve an analogue implementation of a digital filter. Interesting idea, but I suspect a good implementation would require very good mixed-signal design techniques. The aim appears to be to compensate for the sinc frequency response of a simple NOS DAC. It is unclear to me what advantage this gives over a conventional oversampling DAC. Given that it greatly multiplies implementation problems while at the same time necessarily limiting the complexity of the digital filter design it seems to be on balance a worse way of doing it.

abraxalito said:
But if its ideas you're after I suspect you might suffer disappointment - rather like DF96 seems to be heading for. This is more about real designs - the ideas were in the first post.
I would only be disappointed if I had been expecting something good. I didn't actually notice any ideas in the first post - the ideas, such as they are, appear in your blog.

I will leave you all to your fun.
 
Thanks, I hadn't seen that. It appears to be a hybrid digital filter, using delay lines and multiple DACs to achieve an analogue implementation of a digital filter. Interesting idea, but I suspect a good implementation would require very good mixed-signal design techniques.

I concur so far.

The aim appears to be to compensate for the sinc frequency response of a simple NOS DAC. It is unclear to me what advantage this gives over a conventional oversampling DAC.

I can pontificate on that topic for a paragraph. A conventional oversampling DAC would need a digital filter prior, this would generate a result longer than 16bits and hence require dither followed by rounding which decreases the dynamic range, given the use of a 16bit wide path to the DAC chip. Using multiple DACs has an advantage I believe in terms of low-level distortion though this is still just a hypothesis, not yet tested by measurement. Multiple DACs also give more design flexibility because a greater output current is available. There's one further point that in this design each DAC is operating in RTZ (return to zero) which is a mode of operation I was curious to listen to.

I did indeed listen to a 2X OS filter into the same DAC chip (arranged in a quad, balanced configuration) and liked the sound less than this approach. But it wasn't a controlled experiment I admit.

Given that it greatly multiplies implementation problems while at the same time necessarily limiting the complexity of the digital filter design it seems to be on balance a worse way of doing it.

You're most welcome to your perception of it. Mine naturally enough differs from your own.

I would only be disappointed if I had been expecting something good. I didn't actually notice any ideas in the first post - the ideas, such as they are, appear in your blog.

Expectation bias doesn't only apply where the expectation is deemed 'good' by the expectant one.
 
Wow, that's some compliment Trevor. Without even seeing the book I managed to transgress all the strictures? J.S. Bach eat your heart out.



EMC could indeed be a problem but as its not being put in the market, there's no need for regulatory compliance. As regards your other complaints, they're not an issue for the sound or the rudimentary measurements I've so far made.



Which measurements would those be?

You've got to be kidding me !!

You're still living back in the days of vaccuum tubes and point to point wiring and applying that to high speed digital design :eek: It's never going to work properly. And some measurements of the frequency spectrum would confirm that.
 
You've got to be kidding me !!

How curious - there I was feeling quite convinced that the boot was entirely on the other foot.

You're still living back in the days of vaccuum tubes and point to point wiring and applying that to high speed digital design :eek:

Unlike you, I don't consider a clock rate of 2.8MHz 'high speed'.

It's never going to work properly. And some measurements of the frequency spectrum would confirm that.

The frequency spectrum of what though? When you say 'it' are you thinking that I'll build the whole system the same way I built the first prototype DAC? If so then you assume too much.
 
I can pontificate on that topic for a paragraph. A conventional oversampling DAC would need a digital filter prior, this would generate a result longer than 16bits and hence require dither followed by rounding which decreases the dynamic range, given the use of a 16bit wide path to the DAC chip. Using multiple DACs has an advantage I believe in terms of low-level distortion though this is still just a hypothesis, not yet tested by measurement. Multiple DACs also give more design flexibility because a greater output current is available. There's one further point that in this design each DAC is operating in RTZ (return to zero) which is a mode of operation I was curious to listen to.

I did indeed listen to a 2X OS filter into the same DAC chip (arranged in a quad, balanced configuration) and liked the sound less than this approach. But it wasn't a controlled experiment I admit.
My take is that where abraxalito will "win" is in the minimising of fast rise circuitry in the circuit overall -- effectively making the digital work as much like low speed analogue circuitry as he can. It's the separation of high frequency, digital glitching from slow coach audio signals that confers most benefit in the "listenability" stakes ...

Frank
 
My take is that where abraxalito will "win" is in the minimising of fast rise circuitry in the circuit overall -- effectively making the digital work as much like low speed analogue circuitry as he can.

Indeed - well spotted Frank. Treating the digital circuitry as just more analog circuitry is indeed part of the philosophy. So I steer away from the CMOS families which offer lashings of power supply glitches, use power supply voltages as low as I dare, attenuate digital waveforms with series resistors. Stuff like that.

It's the separation of high frequency, digital glitching from slow coach audio signals that confers most benefit in the "listenability" stakes ...

There speaks a man with broadly similar experience to my own in digital systems.
 
My take is that where abraxalito will "win" is in the minimising of fast rise circuitry in the circuit overall -- effectively making the digital work as much like low speed analogue circuitry as he can. It's the separation of high frequency, digital glitching from slow coach audio signals that confers most benefit in the "listenability" stakes ...

Frank

digital design doesn't work well with slow rise time signals that you are advocating. Slow rise time signals cause oscillations and false triggering in logic devices. You can't treat digital processing like low speed analogue circuitry unless you want to go back in time to the UNIVAC which would never have been quick enough to process digital audio !!
 
You're speaking of too slow rise time signals, which can cause metastability in flip flops for example. However HC logic naturally generates slow rise time signals when fed with low supply voltages (I'm currently using 2.5V). No indication on the datasheet that any problems arise from using such a low supply - indeed the logic is specified down to 2V and will probably work even lower.
 
How curious - there I was feeling quite convinced that the boot was entirely on the other foot.



Unlike you, I don't consider a clock rate of 2.8MHz 'high speed'.



The frequency spectrum of what though? When you say 'it' are you thinking that I'll build the whole system the same way I built the first prototype DAC? If so then you assume too much.

2.8MHz square waves with fast rise times which means at least a 28MHz bandwidth to maintain signal integrity !! Your rats nest circuit design topology will be ringing all over the shop not to mention crosstalk and false trigger !! It will certainly not be by the numbers !!
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.