Indeed, one can get distortions on the outputs of a system, when adding these caps. I experienced such situation and I concluded then that this it may not work. FALSE! It works actually, and it do very well.
There are some circumstances (in the rest of the system) which may cause distortions when adding this cap over DAC`s outputs. These system "circumstances" it mean not enough quality for the power rails of the DAC chip, as some other enough many factors concerning the layout of the DAC adjacent circuitry, long wires involved, general high HF noise level in power supplies, any residual ripple induced into the DAC power system, interaction with any other filters into the signal path, etc.
I haven`t study it in deep why distortions it may appear in some cases, but for my own, I done it right everything for my DAC circuitry and its powering system. Then this filtering way was/is fully working, with all reported improvements for the outputted audio signal.
In my opinion, this filtering cap over DAC outputs it may work quite by chance when is to apply it pure and simple in whatsoever system. In some cases it may not work, because the above enumerated system imperfections.
Greg Stewart
Well, you got the Joe`s answer... I have my opinion in this area.
The large decoupling capacities are not to be used with shunt regulators. At least it is a redundant circuit here, using a large cap at a shunt regulator output.
The first issue in this case is the absence of a current limiting device, which is indispensable when using large cap configuration.
I appreciate the tandem voltage regulator, large capacity as best power solution. A shunt regulator instant current capabilities are limited by the active device used for regulation (as by some other factors), while the instant current of a large capacity is close to unlimited for the defined powering range. In case of a voltage regulator+ large cap, the clue is to use regulator devices with lowest possible noise capabilities.
The shunt regulators it have a very low output impedance, but voltage reg. + large cap it may come very close to this parameter, adding in the same time the rest of its advantages.
My suggestion is to not use large capacities together with shunt regulators. You can chose between these two powering alternatives. However, you can use/experiment with this filtering in both powering cases, observing the difference for outputted sound, or which way it may be the best one. Your eventual published conclusions/reports it may be useful for all of us...
Well, you got the Joe`s answer... I have my opinion in this area.
The large decoupling capacities are not to be used with shunt regulators. At least it is a redundant circuit here, using a large cap at a shunt regulator output.
The first issue in this case is the absence of a current limiting device, which is indispensable when using large cap configuration.
I appreciate the tandem voltage regulator, large capacity as best power solution. A shunt regulator instant current capabilities are limited by the active device used for regulation (as by some other factors), while the instant current of a large capacity is close to unlimited for the defined powering range. In case of a voltage regulator+ large cap, the clue is to use regulator devices with lowest possible noise capabilities.
The shunt regulators it have a very low output impedance, but voltage reg. + large cap it may come very close to this parameter, adding in the same time the rest of its advantages.
My suggestion is to not use large capacities together with shunt regulators. You can chose between these two powering alternatives. However, you can use/experiment with this filtering in both powering cases, observing the difference for outputted sound, or which way it may be the best one. Your eventual published conclusions/reports it may be useful for all of us...
Thank you, but satisfies me? Not sure what you mean by that? I suspect we are about the same age - so please, I am not guilty of self-delusion, OK? Just too old for that.
If that is the mental picture you have in mind, you could not be more wrong.
Actually, I am quite the cautious kind. Even on this contentious topic it took me years before I felt confident in making it public. Not high energy at all. More like nervous energy.
You being in America you have high pressure sales people, a very American thing. Not really down here, we play cricket, you know. 😀
I have a friend (hi Hendo) who, with a few other friends of mine, was over here two weeks ago and we were discussing the fracas. Hendo said "of all the people for controversy to follow, you are the least likely" - and they all nodded. I am the guy who tends not to be noticed in a crowd. I was the guy that hid behind Allen Wright's shadow and happy to, and the only picture you will find of me on the Internet is with Allen Wright.
I have been in this business for over fourty years - so I cannot get away with lying about who I am. Too many know me for real. I wouldn't be able to get away with describing myself as relatively unassuming, quietly spoken, helpful, not ego driven in any way and not given to any aggressive behaviour and I rather avoid those who are. I also ask people not to use bad language in my presence and definitely not in my home or business - and most respect that.
This is a public forum, remember that. Either people are now reading this and agreeing or shaking their heads in disbelief. I know which. 😀
Cheers, Joe
Last edited:
OK, but what kind of distortion measurement? And is this with a current DAC etc. and what topology? We need a little more info. Not pushing, but when you are ready.
Cheers, Joe
OK, so now no listening tests and no measurement data. Nice. I was hoping for better out of you, so I can say I'm disappointed but (sadly) not at all surprised.
It might possibly be more helpful if you present data and evidence rather than reflexive responses. Since Joe is now clear that he's not going to do that, why don't you take up the task?
What's nice? Listening to the music. Getting lost in it, then everything is... ahem... academic.
When somebody post this, as they did this morning, then nothing is going to ruin this day: 😀
[url]http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/97043-elsinore-project-thread-205.html#post4457134[/URL]
No better feeling than that. Thousands of hours paying off, doesn't get any better!
Cheers, Joe
That's great, but you've made two particular technical claims, at least one of which is extraordinary. And after much back and forth, you now announce that you won't provide any evidence that the claims are true, because anecdotes.
As cynical as I am, I always have that glimmer of hope that someone will approach things with intellectual integrity. Perhaps I'm too optimistic.
No, just lacking patience. Good things come for those who are willing to wait. You can't always have your cake when you want it, it has to be baked first. 😀
I am actually more optimistic than you are, much more.
Stuart, do you actually ever listen to music? Or only measure? Can I have a measurement of Beethoven's Ninth please? I might not enjoy it otherwise.
Cheers, Joe
.
Yes, that must be it, I don't listen to music. I beat my dog, too. And I was the one who kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.
Of course, in all seriousness, I don't make extraordinary claims without gathering evidence. But that takes an open mind and a willingness to toss what I thought were bright ideas into the trash bin when the evidence doesn't support them.
The answer to that is simple, and which I've already laid out earlier in this thread. It's because no one owes anyone else the performance of such a rigorous task, or even a not so rigorous task, before suggesting such a simple and cheap DIY experiment. Anyone not wishing to perform the experiment is free to choose not to, which I'm certain you will agree. However, such freedom of choice should apply to everyone, shouldn't it? Others may choose to try the experiment, and should be free to decide whether to do so without first being presented listening studies, scientific or otherwise. If you disagree, please tell us why.
Others may have inability to understand what they are actually hearing. Not to mention expectation bias when they have inability to actually hear.
By providing the "test result" we are being honest to the "customers".
Yes. We have the freedom to ignore or challenge someone making extraordinary technical claims. This freedom still exists whether or not we have tried the 'experiment'. Someone who is, in effect, claiming that he has stumbled upon a flaw in circuit theory should not be surprised to be challenged. His followers should not feel 'offended' on his behalf - vicarious offence is rarely a good way to approach differences. On the other hand, they do not have the freedom to ignore circuit theory; the universe does not grant them this freedom but instead insists that all low frequency circuits obey it.Ken Newton said:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.