How can this be true if it's a digital volume control acting on the input data?
Ah I see, this is a misconception based on ESS marketing material. There is no such need to be internal to the DAC, and also no such thing as free lunch. I can do a 32-bit volume control in any number of devices before the DAC.
Last edited:
Anybody have a downloadable copy of suitable multitone test signal please ?.
Dan.
Here is what ESS has to say: http://www.esstech.com/files/3014/4095/4308/digital-vs-analog-volume-control.pdf
Of course, how convenient.
Exactly. I learned it from someone else. How do you like it?
You don't understand the difference between a model & reality, then? A map is not the terrain.
Still trying to hang the "fourier denier" tag on me, eh? Reminds me of fanatical religious arguments - cultism on display - attempts to brand someone
Very like EH's attempts at mCCarthyism - are you or have you ever been Merrill Westasinghe ?
Reminds me of "When did you stop beating your wife"? 😀
Yes, like I said, it's not true that you have to have the volume control inside the DAC. Again, it is possible to implement a 24 or 32-bit volume control anywhere.
The ESS volume control is no different than doing it in a DSP before it, based on their own PDF you linked.
I agree it can be done in DSP since it is done before the modulator, but so far we don't see any computer OS doing it properly.
EDIT: However, my guess would be it probably sounds best if done after, or perhaps during, all the upsampling.
Last edited:
It's not a model, but you don't get that, or do you? It even holds in the acoustic domain, I hope that doesn't blow your mind 😉
Well, that's not what you said. You said it had to be done in the DAC, which is false. It also still "loses resolution", even if those LSBs might be noise or zeros. ESS didn't invent new a reality.
There are plenty of PC applications that do volume control "correctly". There are also many places in the path of a device to do it that have nothing to do with a PC. You can do it "correctly" in a USB receiver like the XMOS or CMedia chips, a sample rate converter, DSP, FPGA, whatever you like.
BTW, I would have to do some more digging but I think the volume control in Windows 10 is a 32-bit floating point implementation, which is fine.
Last edited:
That was my interpretation, and as it is true it is surely not a "troll-feeding statement" . This kind of steady state measurement (which is used to get the THD numbers) does not reflect the reality of reproducing music.
Last edited:
Wow, you mean sound works in the acoustic domain? Hehe
I would hope any mathematical model of sound works in the acoustic domain - jeez, you are operating on some other planet, possibly one where sound is a new discovery? 😱
It depends where and how it is applied. Because non-linear distortion exits, stuff can happen in a device that may not be correctly predicted by a linear model. However, if we look at a signal before an amp or other device, and then look again after audio appears at the output, we can take before and after FFTs to see what shows up. However, the more we average to filter out noise, the more we may attenuate evidence of certain types of more or less pseudo-random distortion effects. Noise floor modulation after amplitude transients might be hard to distinguish from average noise, and other such things.
More like it tries to pull people's IQ down.
According to you, you are not in audio business but still post like those who are. What's up with that?
There we have it but the "fourier defence team" want to extrapolate from steady state test signals to music signals simply because they are true believers & won't accept that the model has limitations
Let's use their same logic on matter - all matter is composed of atoms therefore studying an atom gives us the reality about all matter - hmmm?
Last edited:
Indeed, it is somewhat like taking a nighttime photograph of a dynamically changing vista using a long exposure time - the parts (lights) of the image that are steady will be enhanced in the image & easily seen - the parts that occur momentarily fade into the background & aren't visible so fixed points of light will be enhanced & obvious but a moving point of dim light will not.
Yet when we look at the same scene in real time, that has been photographed, we easily see this moving dimmer light & it draws our attention more so than the fixed point of light - such is perception - these are fundamentally different views of the same scene & trying to extrapolate from the photograph to the scene we have witnessed is trying to use two different frames of reference
Last edited:
It doesn't have to be exclusively one or the other of the options you have proposed, both of which are intended by you to present bad choices for me. No need for that.
When people argue, sometimes it is because they are thinking of different aspects of something or different conditions for using it. In other words, the argument stems in large part from different and unstated underlying assumptions.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to muddy the waters. I was hoping that people would try harder to figure out where the underlying assumptions are to help resolve the dispute, rather than focusing more on winning, never giving up, those types of things.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.