So, you really really, really want something that you don't understand what it is?
//
Probably a stupid question but do I understand correctly that when I feed the dac with a 44.1 signal, it automatically upsamples to 2.8/3.1? So there is no need to upsample -before- the dac?
Last edited:
really Did you mean that? I already think that you as almost alone, your questions can be answered even Wikipedia, who can read is a clear advantage! And at this point to represent techniques from which one obviously has no idea a bit strange....
Why?
I ditched my heavily modified AN dac when I got the dam singing well.
One of the + side is that it outputs voltage direct and no need for I/V conversion. You only add extra components in the audio chain.
Connecting to the AN analog stage is more or less adding a tube buffer. Adds some flavour. (distortion and lower output impedance) Maybe you like it, maybe not.
Actually the analog stage of the AN dac is the same as a the linestage.
Last edited:
This is only a partial answer as it does not explain WHY do we need OS and upsampling at all in this project. As was discussed before, there are R2R solutions that do not do any OS.
Last edited:
You can have a read at Wiki sampling first
It will give a good idea on how digital signal is transferred back to analog. As a consequence of Sampling, up sampling is increase in the number of points on the curve. Making it more detailed and smoother. Actually the goal is to get the so glad form back to analogue as close as possible.
Basic questions are covered on wiki and I think in solid state forum. There should be some information. Might be a good idea to love this discussion in the appropriate thread.
BTW an NOS dac simply would take your digital input at lower rate and process it. As a result you would be even further from the analog sound. But the question is what you prefer to hear
Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk
I think that's true in the sense that you don't *need* to upsample before the dam1021. But, I assume the dam1021's upsampling algorithm is fixed, whereas there are lots available on a PC... Do they make an audible difference? I can only speculate.
Someone with the time and inclination could play around with sox or hqplayer, sending pre-upsampled music to the dam1021 and see if there are differences.
Posted by JJansen:
"really Did you mean that? I already think that you as almost alone, your questions can be answered even Wikipedia, who can read is a clear advantage! And at this point to represent techniques from which one obviously has no idea a bit strange...."
As long as a 70€ NOS, non upsampling, only 16bit44.1khz converting board as the BerryNOS1543 has it's acoustical arguments besides a 300€ DAM, I feel free to critisize details in a technical concept;-)
Why do you think, so many diy'er in this place soundwise favorize newNOS-'filter' out of Paul's partypak, although it is technically and measurably inferior to some other filter- designs? So why shouldn't one investigate this way and strip things further down?
In the early 80ies digital audio technology has been presented as perfect. It's proclaimers thought to know enough. Needless to mention, how wrong they were from the actual position of knowledge;-)
Generally knowledge in science is to a huge amount based on practical experiments and trial and error methods. I'm developing tube-, transistor-amps and loudspeakers for almost 15 years now- so I don't feel like being a complete noob in electrotechnical understanding. If a comparably poor measured tube-amp to MY ears sounds way better than a theoretically superior built transistor-pendant, I'm not interested in discussions concerning the technical benefits of a trans-amp;-)
...and as a last consequence I trust my ears more than measurements- in case not suffering from influenza;-)
Conclusively diy- audio at least to me means fun and if experiments motivated through some experience changing with listening sessions leed to better sound- performance, I'm excited🙂 So don't feel offended by my ambition to investigate- of course- questionable ways;-)
Greetingz, Robert
"really Did you mean that? I already think that you as almost alone, your questions can be answered even Wikipedia, who can read is a clear advantage! And at this point to represent techniques from which one obviously has no idea a bit strange...."
As long as a 70€ NOS, non upsampling, only 16bit44.1khz converting board as the BerryNOS1543 has it's acoustical arguments besides a 300€ DAM, I feel free to critisize details in a technical concept;-)
Why do you think, so many diy'er in this place soundwise favorize newNOS-'filter' out of Paul's partypak, although it is technically and measurably inferior to some other filter- designs? So why shouldn't one investigate this way and strip things further down?
In the early 80ies digital audio technology has been presented as perfect. It's proclaimers thought to know enough. Needless to mention, how wrong they were from the actual position of knowledge;-)
Generally knowledge in science is to a huge amount based on practical experiments and trial and error methods. I'm developing tube-, transistor-amps and loudspeakers for almost 15 years now- so I don't feel like being a complete noob in electrotechnical understanding. If a comparably poor measured tube-amp to MY ears sounds way better than a theoretically superior built transistor-pendant, I'm not interested in discussions concerning the technical benefits of a trans-amp;-)
...and as a last consequence I trust my ears more than measurements- in case not suffering from influenza;-)
Conclusively diy- audio at least to me means fun and if experiments motivated through some experience changing with listening sessions leed to better sound- performance, I'm excited🙂 So don't feel offended by my ambition to investigate- of course- questionable ways;-)
Greetingz, Robert
Robert, your questions are very fair and interesting. Just need to do a bit of basic reading first and it looks like this discussion is worth a thread in solid state section. As it covers the concepts themselves and a number of days can be covered in this topic
Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk
Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk
@aradan
Thanks for your efforts to clarify the issue. However, the main point is not to discuss how digital works. We all can read. But it is to understand WHY certain things, e.g. OS, is implemented in this specific R2R project while there are solutions (read commercially available R2R dacs) that do not do that and are regarded one of the best. So, as you can see, theory does not help here.
And we are trying to understand this in order to see if the performance of dam1021 can be further improved (from already high level).
Last edited:
This might be a valid assumption that dam1021 upsampling algorithm is fixed, but I am not sure about that. I do not think Soren ever confirmed this directly.
Also, nobody still gave an explanation WHY dam1021 runs at 2.8/3.1 Mhz.
Hard to argue with the point. One does not need to read the letters to understand the meaning. And one does not need to know how to build the amp to value it's quality. But if one is going to modify the amp it is better to understand how it works.
What you are saying is, I don't want to know what sampling is. But I want to understand why over sampling is used here. I guess the answer might not be that simple.
Comparing other NOS dacs which have their own specifics in the implementation including but not limited to errors introduced by NOS mode and technical solutions to avoid those errors, like averaging using multiple dacs, see Doede build.
I did not put any word in my previous comments just for fun.
Wiki article is giving an answer on what sampling is, and than it is easier to understand what oversampling does
Dddac has insights in the problems that are faced with NOS mode and that might help you to understand why Soeren did not use it.
But in order to understand this the only perception of sound might not be enough, we should have a mindset on how things work, like how amp circuits works that one usually gets from experience.
Thus topic is as huge as tube and solid state and the answer won't be so direct and easy. Both from the listening perspective and from theoretical
Could you try Soekris dac as NOS, yes technically you can. Can it ruin the dac physically, potentially yes.
Would it sound better in comparison to other NOS devices probably not, without changes to the board and to the architecture, probably not. Because NOS is not just a configuration it has electrical consequences. And the NOS dacs are build to fight those Con sequences while others are not
Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk
What you are saying is, I don't want to know what sampling is. But I want to understand why over sampling is used here. I guess the answer might not be that simple.
Comparing other NOS dacs which have their own specifics in the implementation including but not limited to errors introduced by NOS mode and technical solutions to avoid those errors, like averaging using multiple dacs, see Doede build.
I did not put any word in my previous comments just for fun.
Wiki article is giving an answer on what sampling is, and than it is easier to understand what oversampling does
Dddac has insights in the problems that are faced with NOS mode and that might help you to understand why Soeren did not use it.
But in order to understand this the only perception of sound might not be enough, we should have a mindset on how things work, like how amp circuits works that one usually gets from experience.
Thus topic is as huge as tube and solid state and the answer won't be so direct and easy. Both from the listening perspective and from theoretical
Could you try Soekris dac as NOS, yes technically you can. Can it ruin the dac physically, potentially yes.
Would it sound better in comparison to other NOS devices probably not, without changes to the board and to the architecture, probably not. Because NOS is not just a configuration it has electrical consequences. And the NOS dacs are build to fight those Con sequences while others are not
Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk
@aradan
I agree with the majority of your points. Also when you say '... I want to understand why over sampling is used here. I guess the answer might not be that simple...'. That's why we ask this question (which was indeed asked first back in the beginning of 2015) on this forum to get answers preferably directly from the designer. Does this sound too demanding?
I agree with the majority of your points. Also when you say '... I want to understand why over sampling is used here. I guess the answer might not be that simple...'. That's why we ask this question (which was indeed asked first back in the beginning of 2015) on this forum to get answers preferably directly from the designer. Does this sound too demanding?
It sounds interesting and a fair question. But we might not expect a quick reply I guess. It might be quite technical. Based on what Soeren has mentioned it looks like DAC night not be stable in NOS mode and this decision was made during design phase to simplify the dac itself. Usually the same chip can be run in oversampling and NOS mode, but the board design for each implementation is completely different. I am not saying it is impossible to run DAM in NOS mode but it might require some changes apart form the software filter change as well
Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk
Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk