You know exactly what I'm talking about. The mods said not to make insults in the thread, so you sent yours via PM.
So how is it that you feel compelled to boast and tell others they are wrong? You just admitted that you don't understand it. You and Ken have done nothing but stir the pot with your incessant chants of "just try it," and total disregard to knowledge of electronics.
If you'd simply said that Joe had placed a filter after a DAC, instead of naming it after him, when he did not wish for such, and asked why it improved sound, instead of claiming it be something more than a filter, you'd gotten better results.
Sure, many (included myself) would have disagreed (of the benefits), but you'd had a discussion. Instead you got an argument from your chanting that unless we try it we cannot know and your explanations that made little sense.
You still don't know the way a simple filter works, yet you declare that you're right. Your previous post shows that you don't know how the filter shown works, but yet you boast. If that isn't arrogance, I know not what is.
Would you like me to see if it's still cached on the network and post it for all? You said something about me "crawling out from under a rock."
FoMoCo I will stop here, too to answer to you. I do not know what is your actually point in being here, and in fact I do not care at all.
Have a nice day and happy life.
Bye!
Have a nice day and happy life.
Bye!
If only you actually do stop this time. 🙂 I don't know your point in being here either...
Joe, I'm happy that more evidence, indicating this capability, appears. Until reading this I was aware of the ability of HF directional hearing for humans. On the other hand also our skull appears to have influence on our hearing of HF. This additional proof strengthens the case for extending "audio bandwidth".
Except it hasn't, unless you call an anecdotal story involving an informal "test" with 3 people "evidence". But yes, anything that confirms what we want to believe seems to be called "evidence" these days...
I was simply using it as an example - not everything we hear can be quantify as a measurement, at least not now and not for the foreseeable future. And I am rather happy about that, think about it. Did you know that there are some people who see colours when they hear certain sounds or frequencies? Don't ask me, I have no idea how, but it seems that is the case. How do some people have the ability of perfect pitch and others do not.
I doubt we will ever know how to put a number on everything we experience, but that doesn't mean we won't try - that is part of the human experience.
Cheers, Joe
We must not belittle experimentation. Surely DIY is about using a soldering iron and about achieving things with it. To have something to show for it. This is not a measurement society, many DIY'ers don't have a lot of measurement equipment, don't want to know about anything other than getting results and be part of something bigger.
What is this forum for?
Nobody is "boasting" here - we all should try to encourage others to be doers and not just sideline critics.
It is the doers that make the world what it is, they build things, the develop, the go where others dare not always tread, they don't always get the accolades, but society nevertheless benefits... and what is wrong with that?
The purpose of a critic is to to criticise constructively and to know... ahem.... when to stop.
Right?
So we will continue to ask the question: Why don't you just try it?
And that Mantra will be continued. Like it or not.
Cheers, Joe
.
What is this forum for?
Nobody is "boasting" here - we all should try to encourage others to be doers and not just sideline critics.
It is the doers that make the world what it is, they build things, the develop, the go where others dare not always tread, they don't always get the accolades, but society nevertheless benefits... and what is wrong with that?
The purpose of a critic is to to criticise constructively and to know... ahem.... when to stop.
Right?
So we will continue to ask the question: Why don't you just try it?
And that Mantra will be continued. Like it or not.
Cheers, Joe
.
OT posts removed. If anyone starts getting off the technical discussion and into the personal, they will be spending the next few weeks in read-only.
Well, currently that's not going to be possible, since my old DAC isn't operational and the next one is not finished yet (making slow but steady progress). Right now I've got a hifimedly which has already filtered output, so I can't put a cap between the DAC and the IV since both are in the same chip...
I will definitely put some capacitor/filter footprints on the PCB for experimentation, and try this, but the PCB isn't done yet...
OK, is all right. Of course you can not try it if you do not have an up and running device. So, let`s wait with big interest to hear your opinions "after"...🙂
I'd still be interested in a scope trace of unfiltered DAC output, and especially in a measure of slew rate... that'd be an useful info...
Joe, of course, the cap has to see a voltage across it to do anything. But a cap across the I/V inputs, which I believe is what you show, cannot do anything because the I/V inputs are at zero volts (virtual ground).
Now peufeu had a good point, that with increasing frequency, the I/V may depart from the ideal and actually show some residual voltage, and that may be affected by the cap. Maybe we should try to quantify that and/or measure that.
Lets not forget that even if the I/V departs from ideal, and shows some residual voltage, still the effective impedance of the I/V will be small. And the impedance that the cap is working against is NOT the resistance of the two series Rs (I believe you showed 2 x 10 ohms at one point). No, the impedance the cap works against is those resistors in parallel to whatever impedance the I/V represents!
So your calculation of the cap value based on the two resistors alone is incorrect.
Jan
I'd have to disagree. Somewhat. The circuit keeps changing as we point things out.
The circuit that he shows from the Sony service manual would work the way he described. Those R's are effectively part of the circuit. Or at least the last two are.
However, the earlier circuit he showed as an example from way back in this thread would be exactly as you say: It wouldn't do squat. I pointed that out earlier and it caused quite a ruckus.
I actually (somewhat) tried this. I'm not willing to modify equipment to prove something that isn't all that important, but I did implement a low pass filter (at the output) with an F3 of about 30 kHz. That gives pretty much the 1dB, or so, at 20 kHz that is suggested. I didn't hear any change. Neither good or bad.
It took an f3 of 16 kHz to hear anything, then it was just as expected: It dulled things a bit.
It took an f3 of 16 kHz to hear anything, then it was just as expected: It dulled things a bit.
Not important. How do you know?
Probably not enough.
Too much!
Expected? It was predicted.
Anybody can roll of the highs, all it proves is that you can use a filter to roll of the highs, keep going and there goes the midrange too. 😀😀😀
But at least you got a soldering iron out, so at least we succeeded there - it took you some time. 🙂
But in the meantime, you have created a psychological state that you don't want to hear a difference. That does not augur well for anything positive to come out of it for you?
Still, can you try a setting in between?
Still, I am doubting you will, as you are not taking it seriously - but prove me wrong. OK? You act as if somebody is trying to pull the wool over your eyes? I assure you this is not the case? And if we are hearing something you are not, then no need to go down the "you are deluded road" and from now on, make a genuine attempt to be civil.
Maybe something will go right. Try that middle setting, now that you have done the hard yards. As said a number of times: Too little and it may well be worse, and too much and we get exactly what you described, "dulled highs". That was never swept under the carpet, OK?
The last thing I wanted was to turn this into a battle of egos.
Cheers, Joe
.
You have your opinion, I have mine. Not discussing it. Things get out of hand when we do.
Maybe not, that why I went all the way down to 16 kHz.
Agreed. I went that far to make sure that I went far enough.
Same thing, just a bit pedantic with the wording.
Ah, placebo effect. I could also argue that you and the couple of other fellows that hear it wanted to hear something. That goes both ways. Either of us could be biased.
Give me a number to shoot for. f3 = ?
See now, there you're acting like an _&( again. The moderator's warning goes for everyone. You're not the only one who can flag posts. Set an example, you be civil.
But, you manage to sneak some snide remarks into this post.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.