Nonoz DAC page

[Fred Dieckmann]

Agreed..... but someone is going to ask for the finger too, just wait!

Fred

P.S. How about a nice pumpkin for Halloween?

Whoops.....

[Fred Dieckmann]

The forum needs some good controversial designs. The resulting debates are often useful and allow a better understanding of the audio art by exposure to the strongly held veiwpoints of the opposing sides.


Ken L:

First Grey and now you? Am I the only one still on my first wife? She is a saint by the way, which I suppose is obvious to all by now. She even let me go have desert with my former Engineering Co op (who is as bright as she is pretty) as seen below:
I guess I have reached the harmless old poop age already....sigh.

[dice45]

fedde,

i too find it bad that Jean-Paul has to lurk here now, i would have been interested in what he has to say about his own nonOS DAC experience, and i also had preferred it if he and Remco together had tried to find out what effect or compensation of opposite effects make the non-OS DAC sound as it does. Remco has almost infinite knowledge about the topic, so i have been told. I hope both read it, i hope i did not frighten them away.
But if have observed it too often: if such mutual harrassing escalates (and it does not matter if within rules of formal politeness or not), there exist few things to stop it. Exhaustion? slim chance. Death? yes. Just i am not waiting on that. Not patinet enough.

If someone opens another thread on a this nonOS DAC topic and no harrassing happens, why should the moderator interfere? I just wanted the blood to cool down.

Fred,
we can dicker about new smilies but not about the one with one finger, you know, i mean the binary 4 .. this i left intentionally out. Smilies are "i feel" messages, not "you are" messages. okok, i let some less harming "you are" messages in as a safety valve. But not this one. problem.


Your bright and pretty Eng.Co op ... is she still free? ... i like females with FPU working and in use

[ultranalog]

Remco,
Just my current impression, feel free to improve, PLEASE!

Alright, I will make one last try to make this point:

1- I was told to listen to a non-os dac as an argument that non-os sounds better than os.
2- I have listened to about 7 different non-os configurations and numerous (estimated around 100) os configs. Would have tried more non-os, but the amount of permutations is fairly limited and there was little sign of improvement.
3- I have provided info on the how, why and where of the cons in non-os and how to solve it in the second post I posted in this thread. If that is inpolite, I'd love to be informed why.
4- When all of this was pointed out, calling names is in my book not the way to retort.

Well, it's been fun here at diyaudio.

Remco, signing off.

Replies per e-mail, please.

[jean-paul]

OK, I take the risk of being banned, sin binned or whatever sanction could follow. At least I walk in it with open eyes.

1- I was told to listen to a non-os dac as an argument that non-os sounds better than os.

In my opinion listening is the only way to determine if DAC A is better than DAC B despite DAC A's topology is better on paper. Same goes for OS versus Non OS. Quality of sound is what it is all about isn't it ? Or we should refine the definition of "better".

I have no comments on point 2 and 3.

4- When all of this was pointed out, calling names is in my book not the way to retort.

If Professor is calling names I am sorry. I think other words could/would cause provocation. The Professor name wasn't meant as an insult.
I just got fed up with the negative way things were going. Being sharp is OK but it slowly became a cold war.Please read our posts again and evaluate. I did anyway and made decisions for avoiding this in the future ( well, if I am banned there will be none on this forum ...)

You've made your point and signing off is not the way I and probably others would like to see as a result of this discussion that's gone out of hand. Your input is valuable and your knowledge is beyond doubt. In fact I am sure you know exactly what you're talking about where others including myself have a tendency to assume things or put theory aside. That has its merits too sometimes. Beautiful things can come out of doing something impulsive or not backed up by theory. Like green LED's shining on cd's making sound better. Or building a non os DAC while you know it is theoretical worse than a os one ...

Jean-Paul ( that is not replying by mail since the discussion wasn't either )

[Elso Kwak]

Hi Remco, Jean-Paul & Fedde,
NON-OS is not better by definition.
If all other factors are not equal it is difficult to compare. Also some preamps and poweramps react allergic to the HF hash coming from NON-OS DAC with no analog lowpass filtering applied after the DAC. Also have the impression that the digital filter is more jitter sensitive than NON-OS. This makes the influence of the masterclock of the CDP also important.
Also I have no idea how a DAC with digital filter reacts to my Asynchronous Reclocker as I don't have a DAC with digital filter.
I did not compare all DAC's with digital filter to all NON-OS DAC's.
I did a few A B-ing with the Theta IV and a early version of the NON-OS KWAK-DAC (four AD1851). Here my DAC was the winner and that made me happy.
And I made a comparison with he AD1865 and the CXD 1244 digital filter in or out the circuit.
Also compared the latest version of my DAC AD1865N-K/Asynchronous Reclocker/ improved digital interface to the SonyCDPX-A30ES of a friend of mine. This CDP is equiped with Sony's latest digital filter with slow/soft roll-off options. The Sony was better tham I expected but not in the leage of the KWAK-DAC.
Does the above <B>PROVE</B> that NON-OS is better? No I don't think so but for me the results are encouraging enough to proceed on this path and tweak the maximum performance out of it. And I keep a open mind for a linear phase digital filter as a chip or as a DSP.
eace:

[Fred Dieckmann]

"Also have the impression that the digital filter is more jitter sensitive than NON-OS."

You may have just hit the nail solidly on the Head! This seems to agree with my listening test with diferent transports and digital interfaces so far.

Fred

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
"Also have the impression that the digital filter is more jitter sensitive than NON-OS."

You may have just hit the nail solidly on the Head! This seems to agree with my listening test with diferent transports and digital interfaces so far.

Since the only place that jitter ultimately counts is at the DAC itself, it ultimately boils down to how sensitive the DAC is to jitter, no?

se

[Pedja]

It seems quite logical that the higher sampling frequency and more bits words demand lower jitter. Half of the time that belongs to one bit is the limit. More than that could be considered as error.

1/(2x65536x44100)=173ps for 16bits, 44.1kHz
Not hard to calculate different cases...

Kusunoki (among the others) discusses this.

Pedja

[commstech]

my nos dac. TDA1541A paralleld and CS8412 reciever. no opamp o/p.......just a plate choke loaded 6922, high tension voltage is tube rectified too.