Building the ultimate NOS DAC using TDA1541A - Page 91 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Line Level

Digital Line Level DACs, Digital Crossovers, Equalizers, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29th August 2006, 09:05 PM   #901
poobah is offline poobah  United States
diyAudio Member
 
poobah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Bernhard,

  Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2006, 12:11 AM   #902
MGH is offline MGH  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Texas
Hi Bernard,

"firewall" filters? I thought they were called "brickwall" filters because they abruptly truncate the HF above 22 kHz and introduce all kinds of phase anamolies in the process.

The ultrasonic hash filterless NOS produces actually gets attenuated naturally by our mechanical auditory system (ie, middle and inner ears) - this is known. The hash is plainly measurable but it probably does not contribute negatively to our perception of sound - I have never heard the filterless NOS design that I owned sound harch up on top - just the opposite of most OS designs. The HF was more like live music than most OS designs.

The extra samples introduced in the high frequencies by linear interpolation is distortion, but I'm not sure if this is perceptible or any worse than the inevitable few HF sample points present in the original data. At least phase is preserved, which I think is more important and audible than getting a perfect 16 kHz sine wave. Something OS and filtering can not do.

Why concentrate on frequency spectrum that contributes little to our perception of sound?
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2006, 01:29 AM   #903
anatech is offline anatech  Canada
diyAudio Moderator
 
anatech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Georgetown, On
Hi Bernhard,
I second poobah's comment.

MGH,
Quote:
The hash is plainly measurable but it probably does not contribute negatively to our perception of sound - I have never heard the filterless NOS design that I owned sound harch up on top - just the opposite of most OS designs.
This is really going to depend heavily on the amplifier design you are running. The ultrasonic noise may cause all kinds of distortion in an amplifier. Now if your amp is perfect, I doubt the tweeter likes it very much. However, with the perfect amp and speakers, you could enjoy an evening in the late summer forest, mosquito free.
Quote:
Why concentrate on frequency spectrum that contributes little to our perception of sound?
Frequency response is a large component to how we perceive sound. It really is. Honest. I do take your point that there are other matters to consider, but now you have done a 180 and are going too far the other way.

-Chris
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2006, 02:46 AM   #904
poobah is offline poobah  United States
diyAudio Member
 
poobah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Guys,

Hell... go back to one of my first posts on this thread.

Remember something here... oversampling, by whatever method, is a means of cheating in a sense. The motivation is to avoid the cost of building an 8th order (or more) filter with good caps and good op-amps. It requires precise capacitors... a hunk of silicon with an FIR routine is cheaper... way cheaper.

I think the OS gets a bad rap because of jitter... it is NOT rounding errors in 25 bit processors... really.

Analog filters get a bad rap because of delay and/or phase. But you can't hear either. Don't construe this to mean that phase and delay don't matter where things like crossovers are concerned... they do matter because a single signal is being split into several and recombined in the air. In the case of a single signal... you can't hear it. Your ear is a spectrum analyzer; it doesn't track phase. Again, do the math. You only have to move your head 3/8 of an inch and all the "phase" info is destroyed. (1140 *12) / (20,000 *2) = 0.3 something inches.

We all got screwed here... face it. The distance between 20 kHz and 22.05 kHz was just too small to pull off a low pass filter with 100 dB stop band attentuation. Get mad at Phillips and Sony all you want... but you won't get past Nyquist and Shannon. If the sampling frequency had been chosen just a bit higher, maybe 30 kHz or so, this would all be easy.

I have looked through Guido Tent's stuff; looks pretty good to me; with proper reasoning behind things.

On a final note, if you don't understand the math behind it all; DON'T take the word of someone else who doesn't understand it either. You would not go to a doctor for bread or a baker for surgery...

or.... would you?

  Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2006, 03:55 AM   #905
MGH is offline MGH  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Texas
Chris,

"Frequency response is a large component to how we perceive sound. It really is. Honest. I do take your point that there are other matters to consider, but now you have done a 180 and are going too far the other way."

When I said frequency spectrum, I meant ultrasonic hash >20kHz produced by filterless NOS. How does hash above 20kHz significantly improve our perception of sound quality? May be you misunderstood.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2006, 04:09 AM   #906
MGH is offline MGH  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Texas
Poobah,

"On a final note, if you don't understand the math behind it all; DON'T take the word of someone else who doesn't understand it either. You would not go to a doctor for bread or a baker for surgery...or.... would you?"

Actually I may have gone to a barber - they were the surgeons of their time.

However, the very engineers who understood the math produced some of the most atrocious sounding digital playback. I'm not sure if you're implying EC doesn't understand the math. I think he does. I trust someone who actually designs his product thru critical listening than those who produce a product blindly following Nyquist or Shannons theorem.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2006, 11:34 AM   #907
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Hi John,

I have a question about reclocking that you discussed in post #501.

You state that the MCLK should be used to reclock the I2S signals as it is in sync with the other signals involved. This I totally understand.

Now, what would happen if a free runnning clock was used at the DAC for triggering the reclocking? The ideal scenario is to use this free running clock and send it back to the CD player.

But, I think I need to use a 11 or 16 Mhz MCLK for my CDP, and I wonder if things would be less sensitive to jitter if I could use a lower clock frequency at the DAC end (more like 4 or 8Mhz).

I suppose the 16MHz could be divided down but I assume that will add no benefit.

So, basically I think my question is, how crucial is it for the CLK (not necessarilly MCLK - for arguments sake) and BCK be derived from the same clock, *if* it is possible for jitter to be reduced?

Cheers,
Phil
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2006, 06:55 PM   #908
diyAudio Member
 
Bernhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Munich
[jack mode]
Anybody has a schematic for a nine pole elliptical filter for non os ?

Could cascade three of those ?

http://eecs.oregonstate.edu/~batten/...ilter%2Bgic%22
[/jack mode]
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2006, 07:08 PM   #909
poobah is offline poobah  United States
diyAudio Member
 
poobah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Bernhard,

I think if you did 0.1 dB passband ripple on an elliptical every one would be up in arms.



  Reply With Quote
Old 30th August 2006, 07:18 PM   #910
diyAudio Member
 
Bernhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Munich
Quote:
Originally posted by poobah
Bernhard,

I think if you did 0.1 dB passband ripple on an elliptical every one would be up in arms.




The problem will be rolloff

I have sealed 0,3% styroflex and silver micas and 0,01% vishay bulk foils.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:04 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2