Yes, I personally would not send equipment to be modified in that way. Of course, Richard and I did not know what we would find until we took off the lid after we finished listening. Also, despite the sort of unsightly appearance, Richard said the dac sounds better than before, and I am willing to accept his judgement on that, even though I am puzzled as to why it would sound bad in the first place and why it would sound better now. As to the why's, I would be very interested to see before/after measurements too. Too late, unfortunately.
Last edited:
And the possibility that Richard's sighted evaluation is wrong/biased/etc... did not occur to you. Of course, after all he's your friend, friends are always to be trusted.
These are mostly stupid Debating points I am reading.
The point about 0.1dB matched levels is completely out to lunch. That came from tests decades ago regarding lay people saying they Like the louder one most of the time. Then, from that was, how loud can they detect differences. Not that the 2 are that closely related. and are we saying 0.1 sine wave or filtered noise? And freq?
None of this is applicable to distortion characteristics that we listen for. .... they dont change enough with small level differences. Placing the volume pot at same physical location/position is suitable to detect if there are characteristic sound differences due to inherent distortions. Changing level up or down any small amount does not change what we hear.
If one does not understand this, as described, then you have disqualified yourself.
THx-RNMarsh
The point about 0.1dB matched levels is completely out to lunch. That came from tests decades ago regarding lay people saying they Like the louder one most of the time. Then, from that was, how loud can they detect differences. Not that the 2 are that closely related. and are we saying 0.1 sine wave or filtered noise? And freq?
None of this is applicable to distortion characteristics that we listen for. .... they dont change enough with small level differences. Placing the volume pot at same physical location/position is suitable to detect if there are characteristic sound differences due to inherent distortions. Changing level up or down any small amount does not change what we hear.
If one does not understand this, as described, then you have disqualified yourself.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Right, the results of the group of folks that started this in the long closed DAC thread (some cheap DAC's were not audibly different) are of as much interest to me as Dick and Mark's results. Neither are any more than anecdotal, though I assume both groups are operating in good faith.
I spent the holiday off grid with several other retired ADI folks (DAC designers) it renewed my negative attitude. Unfortunately my friend who used to DJ at KLAX had our music shouted down.
Really? It doesn't seem like to me
. Myself, I was taught to keep my pie hole shut until I am sure I can substantiate what I am about to say. Anything else is pub talk and/or anecdotal characterization.
And yet you mentioned me by name, sorry Mark I don't get that, I do think you communicate in a strange way, it means unfortunately I have to take all you say with a large pinch of salt. But I accept your apology and am happy to leave it at that.
Regarding cost to mod. --
What i pay is often not what others will pay. I often get an industry accommodation price or free etc. The value of the mod is a value judgement. Each individual has to decide themselves.
If you do NOT have very high resolution speakers (low distortions), I would say, maybe better to do other mods instead. Or do them first.
THx-RNMarsh
What i pay is often not what others will pay. I often get an industry accommodation price or free etc. The value of the mod is a value judgement. Each individual has to decide themselves.
If you do NOT have very high resolution speakers (low distortions), I would say, maybe better to do other mods instead. Or do them first.
THx-RNMarsh
Luis Bunuel would be delighted to film the scene where a bunch of DAC designers at ESS or AKM are sitting down with the audiophile crowd, sharing their subjective impressions about the latest product, then run to **** up the DAC design and the datasheet spec performance to make them happy
. Tell ADI that if they want to go into the High End Audio market, this is the best way to go. Call it DENDS (Designed for the Ears Not for the Data Sheet), we'll share the royalties.It is what the modder said it was there for... to absorb... like on top of large IC's. Other places are to shield...... like the volume control, smps and ribbon cable.
In them selves, they are good practices. Does it make a difference to the audio or sound? That is what we wanted to know.
I suppose a variation on this is separate chassis for digital and analog.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Hi,
There are a few things that I wish to say before I finally go off elsewhere.
I left the other day not because I was “bullied into submission”, I left due to feeling disgusted by my own debasement after realising that by trying to help, I had in fact become part of the problem. My detractors are right, other than my own idiosyncratic perspective, I have really nothing much to offer here.
Irony is that a lot of members actually like reading my posts. So much so, that two members are going out of their way to help me - so good to feel wanted and appreciated. But sadly, not here.
The only reason this thread exists without overt moderation is to keep the rest of the forum from becoming contaminated. So yes I agree, it was definitely time to move on. I am not indispensable - you can go ahead and sort yourselves out perfectly well without the likes of me around.
Whether you hear it or not, the world is always full of music.
Good luck ToS
There are a few things that I wish to say before I finally go off elsewhere.
I left the other day not because I was “bullied into submission”, I left due to feeling disgusted by my own debasement after realising that by trying to help, I had in fact become part of the problem. My detractors are right, other than my own idiosyncratic perspective, I have really nothing much to offer here.
Irony is that a lot of members actually like reading my posts. So much so, that two members are going out of their way to help me - so good to feel wanted and appreciated. But sadly, not here.
The only reason this thread exists without overt moderation is to keep the rest of the forum from becoming contaminated. So yes I agree, it was definitely time to move on. I am not indispensable - you can go ahead and sort yourselves out perfectly well without the likes of me around.
Whether you hear it or not, the world is always full of music.
Good luck ToS
Was this a LLNC good practice? Because, according to our mere mortals experience, this is nonsense. I can tell, the space equipment dealing with detecting 10^-16W signals doesn't need it.
And I must ask, is the size of the IC a critical parameter, that is, smallish ICs don't need much of a top shielding?
OMG! Deep space communication, probes and the like operate at around 1Ghz or more. What does that have to do with HF contamination of LF audio/opamps circuits?
Many people have gone further by having seperate chassis for analog and digital with similar improved results.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Could be, that "smallish" ICs on the board are radiating (and receiving) higher in the frequency range and overall cause less problems due to lower currents switched on/off.
@ RNMarsh,
direct emission from ICs is usually related to high frequencies as main contribution comes from the bond leads for pin-out connection, so should be (for the not so "smallish" ) ICs mainly in the region of several hundred of Mhz to 1 Ghz .
@ RNMarsh,
direct emission from ICs is usually related to high frequencies as main contribution comes from the bond leads for pin-out connection, so should be (for the not so "smallish" ) ICs mainly in the region of several hundred of Mhz to 1 Ghz .
Last edited:
Good bye ToS, this thread doing in another member?
I used that black RF spray once, in a test fixture. A Hammond Box that had 2 mobile radios in it that we used as transmitters for an antenna diversity test. It sprayed RF and quieted the test radio too much. I keep spraying the stuff until I sealed every possible place the RF could leak out of the box.
You shield for RF/Emi getting in &/or out. get your BBQ starter out for the first get in test.
I used that black RF spray once, in a test fixture. A Hammond Box that had 2 mobile radios in it that we used as transmitters for an antenna diversity test. It sprayed RF and quieted the test radio too much. I keep spraying the stuff until I sealed every possible place the RF could leak out of the box.
You shield for RF/Emi getting in &/or out. get your BBQ starter out for the first get in test.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.