Ulas, again you post schematics. Have even tried building this in a DAC? Doesn't matter what you say if no one has ever heard it. Don't you understand what we're trying to tell you? Schematics don't mean jack if no one has tested it out. I'm sure the big electronics corporations are falling at your feet trying to hire you since you know just by looking at the schematics whether something will work or not. Who needs a research division when they have you working for them?
For simple circuits, that is true. For complex circuits such as an IC, it's another story. Do remember the problems developing the PCM2706 USB converter chip? I think many of us have problem with Ulas because he thinks he is God when it comes digital circuits. Actually I really don't have problem with that. He may be a fricken genius for all I know. It's his belittling attitude towards others on this board. And as far as I know he has not built one working DAC that we can examine, just schematics. All science and no art makes a boring man.
Wheres the love?
Guys Guys (and any ladys)
Lets get back on topic and leave the nasty stuff.. Please lets focus on helping eachother rather than a political bunfight.
Its ok to oppose something or differ in opinions but it doesnt mean we should slag someone elses point of view.
Looking forward to reading more ontopic stuff.
Ps If thomas is out there could you please read my emails re getting a hold of some tda 1541A's
Thanks
Nick Mega
Australia
Guys Guys (and any ladys)
Lets get back on topic and leave the nasty stuff.. Please lets focus on helping eachother rather than a political bunfight.
Its ok to oppose something or differ in opinions but it doesnt mean we should slag someone elses point of view.
Looking forward to reading more ontopic stuff.
Ps If thomas is out there could you please read my emails re getting a hold of some tda 1541A's
Thanks
Nick Mega
Australia
MGH said:
No.It applies across the board.The more complex the circuit the greater the need to get it right before commiting to hardware. Multiple respins of an ASIC can run into the millions.
This is ultimately a DIY forum. It is not for Ulas to build a working dac. It is for you to take the schematics and turn it into a working dac.
Nick Mega, I agree. Let's get back on track.
Poobah, gold - corrosion resistence, looks nicer, doesn't cost that much more. Teflon - me thinks better insulator than glass epoxy, lasts longer than glass epoxy, looks nicer (I'm vain). I'm still young, not a dinasaur like you
and will be around on earth for awhile - still have about another 40 years. I'm not as smart or practical as you.
Poobah, gold - corrosion resistence, looks nicer, doesn't cost that much more. Teflon - me thinks better insulator than glass epoxy, lasts longer than glass epoxy, looks nicer (I'm vain). I'm still young, not a dinasaur like you
and will be around on earth for awhile - still have about another 40 years. I'm not as smart or practical as you.rfbrw,
"The more complex the circuit the greater the need to get it right before commiting to hardware."
We are in complete agreement.
"This is ultimately a DIY forum. It is not for Ulas to build a working dac. It is for you to take the schematics and turn it into a working dac."
Why would I want to waste money and time to build a DAC that has not been proven to work? That's silly.
"The more complex the circuit the greater the need to get it right before commiting to hardware."
We are in complete agreement.
"This is ultimately a DIY forum. It is not for Ulas to build a working dac. It is for you to take the schematics and turn it into a working dac."
Why would I want to waste money and time to build a DAC that has not been proven to work? That's silly.
Jeff Mai whoever you are. You don't know me, so don't lecture me on how I should spend my time. People have different professions. I work 80-90 hr weeks and I would be lucky to have a weekend off in a month. I don't have time like you, to build something that is untested. If I wanted to be the FIRST to build something, it would be of my own design, not someone elses. DIY does not mean you are the first to build something, does it? We have DIY kits that someone has already built and tested (Doeds DDDAC, Tent DAC, etc). Look it up in the dictionary if you still don't understand what it means.
Sorry EC. I will not respond anymore to these flames on your thread.
Sorry EC. I will not respond anymore to these flames on your thread.
MGH said:
What seems silly to me is treating a DIY forum as if it were the local HiFi emporium.
There is more than enough in said schematic to create a working dac but you have to have the ability and or be willing to acquire the ability to do it. If all you want to do is sit around waiting for crumbs off the masters table then you might as well go down to the HiFi shop.
MGH said:
First you blast me for not posting my own designs, and when I do, you say schematics are not enough. No, I haven’t built the exact 8xNOSDAC but I have a much more sophisticated variation and I know exactly what 8-times linear interpolation sounds like. I even posted a graph showing how linear interpolation attenuates high frequencies. If built with TDA1541As, the 8xNOSDAC design I posted will sound just like the “Ultimate NOS DAC”, maybe a little better because it doesn’t use reclocking.
With the 8xNOSDAC I was just demonstrating that your hero, who at the beginning of this thread claimed to have invented linear interpolation using multiple DACs, doesn’t know much about digital design since he uses so many chips to perform a very simple task. He has also demonstrated that he doesn’t know how USB works, how a USB DAC generates the timing for the D/A clocks, and how clock jitter relates to digital audio.
There is nothing new about linear interpolation. Accuphase and others did it a quarter-century ago as a way to increase the effective sample rate, e.g., upsample, before digital filters were developed. More recently, the $44K Trinity DAC boasts a “new” invention called LIANOTEC. It’s just 8-times linear interpolation.
MGH said:
As a matter of fact, they did. Before I retired, companies were competing to hire me as a consultant because I earned a reputation for my ability to identify and solve problems in both hardware and software system designs.
rfbrw and jeff, looks like you took my statement too literally. I was not implying it wasn't worth it for ANYONE to try to build a DAC first - notice I used "I" not "ANYONE" in my statement. As I have said before, I am a relative novice compared to many of you, and it would be silly for ME to try to attempt a project that has not been proven to work because it would be a disaster with my limited skills. I need experience before I can take that step. That is why I have been interested in this thread from the beginning - to learn the thought process that goes in designing and building a DAC from EC who has explained in detail each step of his endevour, mistakes and all. I have tremendous respect for anyone who takes on a project from scratch. My apologies if I have offended anyone.
Ulas, peace be with you. May be you are a genius.
Everyone, let's try to get back on track. Again sorry EC for hijacking your thread like this.
Ulas, peace be with you. May be you are a genius.
Everyone, let's try to get back on track. Again sorry EC for hijacking your thread like this.
Hi all,
Let me give some comments on the last posts,
This thread documents the attempt of building the ultimate NOS DAC using the TDA1541A, some may argue this is a nutty stupid thread, however the octal-D-I DAC already functions beyond expectation, it's perceived sound quality is for real, and it's progress is well documented into detail on this thread. Two diy members already listened to the DAC. This is a real project that not only exists on paper. The techniques used are one possible approach to try to achieve this goal, among many.
People who want to build the same DAC I build can do so, it's their own descision. I am very glad I build it, I enjoy listening to it every day.
Yes it's more complicated than other diy DAC projects, but it's composed of easy to build modules that can be used separately.
I have shared my experiences during the DAC design with you all, it has cost me a lot of time and effort. But as could be expected it seems this is not appreciated by everyone. I tried to stay polite regardless of some diyAudio members attitude, and remarks made behind my back on other threads. I also noted that I take all critisizms seriously, and use them to improve the project sooner or later. I am not aware of rules or regulations that state all (documented) diy projects posted on this forum must be 100% perfect.
Hi Ulas,
First of all, I don't like the way you referred to me [post#834]. When designing High-End audio equipment it helps when listening to it. I agree that by closely examining a schematic diagram, certain predictions can be made about it's performance. A practical setup however may reveal things you possibly overlooked. You say I am using too many chip's for a simple task, well it might turn out they are actually necessary. I got the first USB audio interface I ever build working perfectly within days, what's so wrong about that? My octal D-I DAC works for real, and the sound quality is real, this is a bit more difficult than simply draw a schematic diagram and claim it will sound a little better than the octal D-I DAC. I spend a lot of time exploring jitter related sound degrading in practice and learned a lot of it.
Hi rfbrw,
End users hearing is a integral part of the audio-chain, design can make advantage of this. Complex circuits can be reduced to a number of simple easy to build modules that can be tested separately. Thanks for all the tips and input regarding this project.
Hi poohbah,
Gold plated traces and teflon print material replace RoHS compliant oxidizing pure tin or silver plated traces and paper based printed circuit boards. It's a quality issue, it has nothing to do with sound quality. Using more than 1 DAC chip like in the octal D-I DAC and the experimental 16 and 32 DAC D-I setup to significantly increase resolution has little to do with parallelling impressive amounts of DAC chip's. The resolution enhancement produced very interesting results. Thanks for all the tips and input regarding this project.
Let me give some comments on the last posts,
This thread documents the attempt of building the ultimate NOS DAC using the TDA1541A, some may argue this is a nutty stupid thread, however the octal-D-I DAC already functions beyond expectation, it's perceived sound quality is for real, and it's progress is well documented into detail on this thread. Two diy members already listened to the DAC. This is a real project that not only exists on paper. The techniques used are one possible approach to try to achieve this goal, among many.
People who want to build the same DAC I build can do so, it's their own descision. I am very glad I build it, I enjoy listening to it every day.
Yes it's more complicated than other diy DAC projects, but it's composed of easy to build modules that can be used separately.
I have shared my experiences during the DAC design with you all, it has cost me a lot of time and effort. But as could be expected it seems this is not appreciated by everyone. I tried to stay polite regardless of some diyAudio members attitude, and remarks made behind my back on other threads. I also noted that I take all critisizms seriously, and use them to improve the project sooner or later. I am not aware of rules or regulations that state all (documented) diy projects posted on this forum must be 100% perfect.
Hi Ulas,
First of all, I don't like the way you referred to me [post#834]. When designing High-End audio equipment it helps when listening to it. I agree that by closely examining a schematic diagram, certain predictions can be made about it's performance. A practical setup however may reveal things you possibly overlooked. You say I am using too many chip's for a simple task, well it might turn out they are actually necessary. I got the first USB audio interface I ever build working perfectly within days, what's so wrong about that? My octal D-I DAC works for real, and the sound quality is real, this is a bit more difficult than simply draw a schematic diagram and claim it will sound a little better than the octal D-I DAC. I spend a lot of time exploring jitter related sound degrading in practice and learned a lot of it.
Hi rfbrw,
End users hearing is a integral part of the audio-chain, design can make advantage of this. Complex circuits can be reduced to a number of simple easy to build modules that can be tested separately. Thanks for all the tips and input regarding this project.
Hi poohbah,
Gold plated traces and teflon print material replace RoHS compliant oxidizing pure tin or silver plated traces and paper based printed circuit boards. It's a quality issue, it has nothing to do with sound quality. Using more than 1 DAC chip like in the octal D-I DAC and the experimental 16 and 32 DAC D-I setup to significantly increase resolution has little to do with parallelling impressive amounts of DAC chip's. The resolution enhancement produced very interesting results. Thanks for all the tips and input regarding this project.
Hi EC,
Most of us do truly appreciate your effort and time you put into this project for our benefit. Please don't let those who only post schematics stating it's "superior" to yours bother you - they are a legend only in their own mind and no one else's. Your statement "My octal D-I DAC works for real, and the sound quality is real, this is a bit more difficult than simply draw a schematic diagram and claim it will sound a little better than the octal D-I DAC" is spot on. Theory only goes so far and unforseen mistakes can be made on schematics. Without actually building a working sample and testing it, schematics do not mean much. I have done basic research in the sciences for many years, and you my friend actually follow the scientific method - observe, hypothesize, and test - unlike many on this DIY forum. Please keep up the excellent work.
Most of us do truly appreciate your effort and time you put into this project for our benefit. Please don't let those who only post schematics stating it's "superior" to yours bother you - they are a legend only in their own mind and no one else's. Your statement "My octal D-I DAC works for real, and the sound quality is real, this is a bit more difficult than simply draw a schematic diagram and claim it will sound a little better than the octal D-I DAC" is spot on. Theory only goes so far and unforseen mistakes can be made on schematics. Without actually building a working sample and testing it, schematics do not mean much. I have done basic research in the sciences for many years, and you my friend actually follow the scientific method - observe, hypothesize, and test - unlike many on this DIY forum. Please keep up the excellent work.
BTW... MGH,
I'm 48... if that makes me a dinosaur by your math... I suppose someone 40 would have to be a neanderthal by mine.
In either event, part of the scientific method is being prepared to defend rigorously any theory which runs contrary to established and proven fact.
I really doubt that those here dazzled and drooling at the shiny objects have taken the time to LEARN sampling theory. Therein lies a problem. If my comments have dissuaded just one person from putting this pile of chips together, then good.
Linear interpolation creates the very errors that any form of oversampling, L-I or otherwise, is intended to remove. This issue is consistently ignored because the theory isn't easy, the design is done, people must "save face", and lots of chips look real cool. Again, learn the math.
I'm 48... if that makes me a dinosaur by your math... I suppose someone 40 would have to be a neanderthal by mine.
In either event, part of the scientific method is being prepared to defend rigorously any theory which runs contrary to established and proven fact.
I really doubt that those here dazzled and drooling at the shiny objects have taken the time to LEARN sampling theory. Therein lies a problem. If my comments have dissuaded just one person from putting this pile of chips together, then good.
Linear interpolation creates the very errors that any form of oversampling, L-I or otherwise, is intended to remove. This issue is consistently ignored because the theory isn't easy, the design is done, people must "save face", and lots of chips look real cool. Again, learn the math.
Dear EC,
About the post above, you should seriously consider the Diplomatic career (I mean appart DIY!)
MGH said:
Poobah said:
Probably no DAC is perfect, theoretically or sonically. We must seek for the closest to perfection. What do you recommend? (another thread?)
Best regards.
M
About the post above, you should seriously consider the Diplomatic career
(I mean appart DIY!)MGH said:
Indeed, but test better voltage regulators for improved sonics. They are a little more expensive (and need some R and C to work) but IMHO, sound better than 78/79**.
Poobah said:
You are probably right, but the question is wether or not ecdesign's Direct-Interpolation DAC actually sounds good or not.
Probably no DAC is perfect, theoretically or sonically. We must seek for the closest to perfection. What do you recommend? (another thread?)
Best regards.
M