AK4493 datasheet contains some explanation on the sound control. I guess "Analog internal current" refers to VDDL/R, not Vref as it is only 1.5mA in these voltage out dacs. AK4497 has similar sound control but there the non-default Sound Quality Select Mode is labeled as "High Sound Quality Mode". Limiting the internal analog circuit current may explain the increased distortion I measured with AK4490.
Attachments
Like Linkwitz? If its two speakers then it should sound like two separate speakers, anything else is effects?
Not about me in particular.
AKM seem to think it might be preferred by a lot of people or they wouldn't bother with it. If its mostly a linear distortion effect then what makes it any different from digital room correction which is a linear distortion of the original recording? Lots of people use cheap FR correction boxes with analog inputs and outputs. Those things add more ugly HD sounding distortion/correlated-noise than the AKM circuit, so they must be effects boxes too.
AKM seem to think it might be preferred by a lot of people or they wouldn't bother with it. If its mostly a linear distortion effect then what makes it any different from digital room correction which is a linear distortion of the original recording? Lots of people use cheap FR correction boxes with analog inputs and outputs. Those things add more ugly HD sounding distortion/correlated-noise than the AKM circuit, so they must be effects boxes too.
Actually, you don't know what I mean when I say something sounds better. I told you I removed the AKM circuit from the eval board because I didn't like it. That said, I know other people who like an illusion of space quite a lot. Its not a bad listening experience aside from the compromises (much like room correction).
Again, what I have been talking about is a type of stereo illusion reproduction correction system. Just a more advanced concept than FR correction. If we think of one as an effects box and other as not an effect then it says more about about our arbitrary mental classification system than about reproducing a recording as it was intended to sound.
Again, what I have been talking about is a type of stereo illusion reproduction correction system. Just a more advanced concept than FR correction. If we think of one as an effects box and other as not an effect then it says more about about our arbitrary mental classification system than about reproducing a recording as it was intended to sound.
Not exactly, only ~10% liked this mode. Majority prefers to switch OFF THD Compensation.
Don't know what you statistics size was but 10% is more than no one. And only 20% preferred THD compensation on (which I presume means minimized distortions). So perhaps the correct interpretation of your statistics is that only 20% preferred lowest distortions.
But as I have said before ES9038Q2M THD compensations are level/fs/channel dependent so it is no surprise to me that people don't like them.
But as I have said before ES9038Q2M THD compensations are level/fs/channel dependent so it is no surprise to me that people don't like them.
About what filter you are talcking - Digital Filter before DAC-chip (DF), or reconstruction analogue filter after?
If DF - it depends on many things.. 1st of all - sample rate.
To head the difference in DF at 44.1 is not the same as at 192 or 384/
As for me, on AKM and ESS - I do not hear the difference sometimes even at 96, and never heard it at >=192.
But also at 44.1 - not at every musical track.
If reconstruction - ooohhh, i go for popcorn....
Strange question to ask. I'll reformulate to something more sensible: what percentage of people hear differences in dac filters?
Maybe not so strange. I'm interested in perception and cognition. Naive Realism can be hard for some people to accept: https://rb.gy/xnsdzr Thus if someone doesn't hear dac digital filters they may form a belief that no one can. That anyone who claims to hear the filters must be imagining things or lying. That filters are a snake oil marketing gimmick. IIRC there a few forum members who have expressed such views.
Last edited:
As all quoted percentages are integer multiples of 10 %, chances are that 10 % is precisely one.
And chances are that only 2 liked lowest distortions and a whopping 50% more people did not hear a difference
In addition to having different view of what sounds better we seem to be reading different threads and posts on this forum. IMO there is a vastly larger number of posts claiming subjective sighted listening results as valid for everyone and anybody questioning those results is either deaf or an EE.