Thinking that you can hear the type of metal you stuck on top of a DSP chip in the analog output. LOL
This is science, not witchcraft or alchemy.
Acceptance and promotion of garbage like this has contributed to the death of high-end audio.
Dick, John are you paying attention? Don't condemn without examination.
I did examine. I didnt hear any significant change between any of them.
Keeping an open mind qualifier --> Thats thru my All-in-One Asus computer and headphones..
-RM
Chris719, You are top performing student of your cherished belief system, I will continue with what I know and personally experience.
Perhaps a listen to the links I posted in #18756 may pique your interest, but only you can make that effort, minor mouse clicking effort at that.
Dan.
Perhaps a listen to the links I posted in #18756 may pique your interest, but only you can make that effort, minor mouse clicking effort at that.
Dan.
Last edited:
Anyone who knows me, knows I have a s*** load of test gear and keep cycling thru different instruments to measure different things. I always measure and then listen.
As for RF/uWave, I have working experience, HP training and plenty of analyzers and probes. Workd in Standards lab making RF - uwave measurments, Built large walk-in RF anechoic chamber too... was my last job at LLNL. I own and use 5 different spectrum and network analyzers from 10Hz to 6 GHz.
At >HF the signals are mostly reflected and not absorbed.....
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
You oughta hear narrowing of mono information and better depth portrayal comparing Original to TS version files, especially for the Goodman recordings which are mono source.
The M1 and M2 versions are another pair of changes, best to identify and familiarise the Original/TS differences first.
Dan.
With the increased integration of functions in large
VLSI chips and the increse in speed and power, the
large ASICs and CPUs are the among the worst
EMI sources in an equipment. For years, the
containment solutions were mainly at PCB level and
chassis level, and involved less design for better
EMI at the chip level. On one hand, there are no
EMI rules included in the tools for VLSI synthesis,
and the package was also designed mainly from a SI
perspective.
and a lid 206 placed over die 204 and substrate 202.
Die underfill fills the gap between die 204 and
substrate 202. Lid 206 is coupled to die 204 using an
adhesive 208. Lid 206 is coupled to substrate 202
using an adhesive 214. Substrate 202 has a number
of internal layers, such as power, ground and signal
layers. A conductive trace 210 is disposed around die
204 on a top surface 220 of substrate 202.
Conductive trace 210 may be formed as part of the
etching process used to prepare substrate 202. Buried
vias 212 couple conductive trace 210 to a first
ground plane 222. This creates a low impedance
path from lid 206 to first ground plane 222, as lid
206 is coupled to substrate 202 using adhesive 214
which is a conductive epoxy. The conductive epoxy
bridges a conductive path from lid 206 back to the
IC package. Buried vias 212 are located along
conductive trace 210 at regular intervals. Conductive
trace 210 and buried vias 212 provide local
grounding for the trace 210.
Figure 6. Side view of an integrated circuit package with some
EMI containment feature
This is describing a metal lid over VLSI packaging. primarily for CPU cores etal. So, I wondered if an 'integral' LID on audio dsp and DAC chips would help also. Yes, shorter gnd connection will allow higher freq efficiency.
"The energy concentrated at the discrete frequencies of high frequency periodic signals radiated off-chip
cause serious problem in consumer electronics. ' JVSP 2013.
THx-RNMarsh
VLSI chips and the increse in speed and power, the
large ASICs and CPUs are the among the worst
EMI sources in an equipment. For years, the
containment solutions were mainly at PCB level and
chassis level, and involved less design for better
EMI at the chip level. On one hand, there are no
EMI rules included in the tools for VLSI synthesis,
and the package was also designed mainly from a SI
perspective.
and a lid 206 placed over die 204 and substrate 202.
Die underfill fills the gap between die 204 and
substrate 202. Lid 206 is coupled to die 204 using an
adhesive 208. Lid 206 is coupled to substrate 202
using an adhesive 214. Substrate 202 has a number
of internal layers, such as power, ground and signal
layers. A conductive trace 210 is disposed around die
204 on a top surface 220 of substrate 202.
Conductive trace 210 may be formed as part of the
etching process used to prepare substrate 202. Buried
vias 212 couple conductive trace 210 to a first
ground plane 222. This creates a low impedance
path from lid 206 to first ground plane 222, as lid
206 is coupled to substrate 202 using adhesive 214
which is a conductive epoxy. The conductive epoxy
bridges a conductive path from lid 206 back to the
IC package. Buried vias 212 are located along
conductive trace 210 at regular intervals. Conductive
trace 210 and buried vias 212 provide local
grounding for the trace 210.
Figure 6. Side view of an integrated circuit package with some
EMI containment feature
This is describing a metal lid over VLSI packaging. primarily for CPU cores etal. So, I wondered if an 'integral' LID on audio dsp and DAC chips would help also. Yes, shorter gnd connection will allow higher freq efficiency.
"The energy concentrated at the discrete frequencies of high frequency periodic signals radiated off-chip
cause serious problem in consumer electronics. ' JVSP 2013.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Right, switching electronics make noise.
What is your DAC chip going to radiate that isn't already in its conducted output?
Where is actual problem, as opposed to the perceived problem?
As an example, your Benchmark has an XMOS MCU/DSP, Xilinx Spartan 6 FPGA performing DSP functions, TI SRC4392 ASRC, and various LT switching regulators within inches of the analog outputs. All with no shield over any ICs.
On modern RF PCBs, you tend to see things like all traces going in and out of the shielded area being buried, all inputs / outputs being filtered, via stitched ground planes and fill. Sticking a copper hat on your XMOS receiver in an existing design is probably going to be buried in the noise when it comes to the actual radiated emissions of the product.
Is it a good idea to build shields into a product? Sure, you don't have to populate it if you change your mind.
Retrofitting copper tape to a device that doesn't have a problem and claiming some general benefit? I don't know. Before and after measurements would tell the story.
What is your DAC chip going to radiate that isn't already in its conducted output?
Where is actual problem, as opposed to the perceived problem?
As an example, your Benchmark has an XMOS MCU/DSP, Xilinx Spartan 6 FPGA performing DSP functions, TI SRC4392 ASRC, and various LT switching regulators within inches of the analog outputs. All with no shield over any ICs.
On modern RF PCBs, you tend to see things like all traces going in and out of the shielded area being buried, all inputs / outputs being filtered, via stitched ground planes and fill. Sticking a copper hat on your XMOS receiver in an existing design is probably going to be buried in the noise when it comes to the actual radiated emissions of the product.
Is it a good idea to build shields into a product? Sure, you don't have to populate it if you change your mind.
Retrofitting copper tape to a device that doesn't have a problem and claiming some general benefit? I don't know. Before and after measurements would tell the story.
Last edited:
You clearly had more stamina than I doI dismissed listening vinyl with a partner forty years ago. Every time I stopped to turn the record over magic disappeared
Guitar sounds better with M1 and M2, a bit fatter, too thin on orig wav.
FWIW, Ed's tone had shifted significantly by the time Jump was recorded.
His early stuff was incredible. By the time Sammy came along it all got a bit polished, produced and pristine for me.
T
Agreed, more punch/presence of guitar/vocals compared to Original.wav or TS.wav.
Any other findings ? of this or other file sets ?.
Sure, this is recording of Karaoke duo using Soundcraft digital interface/stage box with Laptop/Tablet wired or wireless control surfaces.
Dan.
Luckily, for some years I do not listen TOP 100 Music Chart
I do not know what songs is popular now.I listen something like this.
Luckily, for some years I do not listen TOP 100 Music Chart
I listen something like this.
Not my kind of music, but that guy has some kind of vocal talent.
How do-you know ? Is-it a correct scientific attitude to trust your sympathies / antipathies towards an author rather than to try to verify the accuracy of his remarks?
BTW: I bet my shirt that Mr. Marsh is better equipped than you in measuring devices of all kinds. Without forgetting the rude and aggressive tone of your answer.
http://www.scvemc.org/archive/032010Radu.pdf
Last edited:
Save yourself some embarrassment and read the linked article beyond the title.
BTW: lucky pick; should you bet your shirt against me, you’d be buck naked by now.
Just had a quick listen Dan and that was obvious.
Yes, I was referring to the real VH recordings and how the band had
progressed.
I mean this is a guitar sound,
YouTube
From a mix perspective, very raw and simple, guitar one side (almost) guitar reverb, other side.
I think they got in the studio and pretty much smashed this out live.
Kids these days take note..
Here's another one:
YouTube
Garry Moore, Hey Joe, with Mitch Mitchell and Billy Cox, he's got some big shoes to fill, and does it very well, maybe as good as Mr Hendrix himself.
Love the funky reverb on Garry's Gita
T
I notice from reading this thread that some contributors, who claim to be in the camp of scientists, objectivists, in front of those who dare to share listening experiences, are those who show the most partial and more anti scientist attitude.
They condemn all the words of those whom they think (often wrongly) to be in the opposite camp, that of the snake-oil dealers, without examination, without verification, in the name of a so-called "correct scientific attitude".
They often just refer to some writings of those whom they regard as their "gurus" and believe-in blind (a totally sectarian way in the religious sense of the term), Douglas S., Bruno P., or Scott W. etc.
Putting them, in the same time, in a delicate and uncomfortable position.
I note two things:
First of all, the professionals we have the chance to meet in this forum, as well as those who regularly offer the products of their audio designs to the community, never show this type of attitude. And reciprocally.
These people have a nuanced attitude, made of open-minded doubts, curiosity, and do not condemn, without examination, anything that, as Scott said recently, is not obviously against scientific verified rules.
They have a balanced position between subjective listening (with no preconception), analysis of causes, effects and solutions, and, when the subject is of enough interest to them, make appropriate measurements to verify both the claims and their own feelings.
On the other camp, in revenge, they just sing their eternal psalms in a loop: "Proof, blind tests, ABX, flawed, numbers (that they never provide on their own) etc."
Worse, this is not surprising, they show a permanent aggressivity, according to their sympathies or antipathies, against those they does not consider to be part of their little sect.
Malraux said: "The 21st century will be mystical or will not be ", this is verified here in a very strange, paradoxical way, when the so-called science turns into totally anti-scientific religion.
Of course, nothing will ever change their minds or attitudes: It is in the essence of this fault.
They condemn all the words of those whom they think (often wrongly) to be in the opposite camp, that of the snake-oil dealers, without examination, without verification, in the name of a so-called "correct scientific attitude".
They often just refer to some writings of those whom they regard as their "gurus" and believe-in blind (a totally sectarian way in the religious sense of the term), Douglas S., Bruno P., or Scott W. etc.
Putting them, in the same time, in a delicate and uncomfortable position.
I note two things:
First of all, the professionals we have the chance to meet in this forum, as well as those who regularly offer the products of their audio designs to the community, never show this type of attitude. And reciprocally.
These people have a nuanced attitude, made of open-minded doubts, curiosity, and do not condemn, without examination, anything that, as Scott said recently, is not obviously against scientific verified rules.
They have a balanced position between subjective listening (with no preconception), analysis of causes, effects and solutions, and, when the subject is of enough interest to them, make appropriate measurements to verify both the claims and their own feelings.
On the other camp, in revenge, they just sing their eternal psalms in a loop: "Proof, blind tests, ABX, flawed, numbers (that they never provide on their own) etc."
Worse, this is not surprising, they show a permanent aggressivity, according to their sympathies or antipathies, against those they does not consider to be part of their little sect.
Malraux said: "The 21st century will be mystical or will not be ", this is verified here in a very strange, paradoxical way, when the so-called science turns into totally anti-scientific religion.
Of course, nothing will ever change their minds or attitudes: It is in the essence of this fault.
Last edited:
Take, for example, this sentence of Bruno P., which I consider controversial and which is often presented as a verse of the Koran or the Bible: "If you use global feedback, use a lot.".
We could discuss the pros and cons of both solutions (no or little feedback VF high level one). Measurements will show different behaviors. So, it is granted that there is a difference.
According to our requisites, how can-we decide witch one have the most important and positive or negative impact on the final result, without ... serious listening ?
Lot of feedback ratio have a positive impact on the distortion numbers at low frequencies.. But, if in both situation, even if the distortion ratio is supposed to be big enough to be out of our audibility threshold, the other factors begin to be more interesting to compare (Impair harmonic distortion products, variation of the distortion ratios with the frequencies, stability, recovery time etc...). And how to figure their impact (our unknown real audibility thresholds) in an other way than ... listening ?
And, of course, the result of such a study, made under a particular situation (the circuit used for the comparison) will not be obvious enough to be generalized to all the other situations.
When I've read this Bruno's sentence the first time, I had thought: "Oh, well , this is a Bruno's opinion.", took it with curiosity and all the respect that deserve this talented designer, and reserved my own opinion to more extended studies that I feel too long and complicated to be never been done.
To summarize, he should have written: "When I use global feedback, I use a lot."
Because, if he succeeded to produce very good amplifiers with such a way, others have succeeded very good products too, with the exact opposite way.
We could discuss the pros and cons of both solutions (no or little feedback VF high level one). Measurements will show different behaviors. So, it is granted that there is a difference.
According to our requisites, how can-we decide witch one have the most important and positive or negative impact on the final result, without ... serious listening ?
Lot of feedback ratio have a positive impact on the distortion numbers at low frequencies.. But, if in both situation, even if the distortion ratio is supposed to be big enough to be out of our audibility threshold, the other factors begin to be more interesting to compare (Impair harmonic distortion products, variation of the distortion ratios with the frequencies, stability, recovery time etc...). And how to figure their impact (our unknown real audibility thresholds) in an other way than ... listening ?
And, of course, the result of such a study, made under a particular situation (the circuit used for the comparison) will not be obvious enough to be generalized to all the other situations.
When I've read this Bruno's sentence the first time, I had thought: "Oh, well , this is a Bruno's opinion.", took it with curiosity and all the respect that deserve this talented designer, and reserved my own opinion to more extended studies that I feel too long and complicated to be never been done.
To summarize, he should have written: "When I use global feedback, I use a lot."
Because, if he succeeded to produce very good amplifiers with such a way, others have succeeded very good products too, with the exact opposite way.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.