Only the "Low DAC" to "High DAC" switch needs to be done instantly. The "High DAC" to "Low DAC" switch can be done infrequently enough to make detection unlikely.
Ed
Ed
One DAC is constantly conneced to the output (IIRC the low DAC), the other is added to the output when the program level exceeds -26dBu.
And it's not an on/off switch but a gradual adding. I don't think that is a simple thing to maintain 1 LSB linearity.
Also, the low DAC digital input is initially multiplied by 34dB (50 times) and after DA conversion the result is attenuated analog 34dB. That analog attenuation needs to be at 1:540,000 accuracy.
I don't know how to do that and prevent any drift with time and temp.
Jan
And it's not an on/off switch but a gradual adding. I don't think that is a simple thing to maintain 1 LSB linearity.
Also, the low DAC digital input is initially multiplied by 34dB (50 times) and after DA conversion the result is attenuated analog 34dB. That analog attenuation needs to be at 1:540,000 accuracy.
I don't know how to do that and prevent any drift with time and temp.
Jan
With some signal processing to mask self noise from our blood circulation and breathing, which is probably well above 0 dBA
I have read statements that in a very good anechoic room people can hear blood rush through their body.
Never experienced it myself though, although I have done work in anechoic rooms.
Jan
Never experienced it myself though, although I have done work in anechoic rooms.
Jan
Quiet enuff for people to detect the blood pumping thru theri arteries (particualily those near or in the ear).
dave
Agreed, the fading is gradual. They are not able to maintain monotonicity. I think their technique is in making the errors less detectable.
Ed
27-bit DAC real world precision is a pure nonsense. Nonsense that would bring no improvement to audio.
I hear the blood pumping through my arteries anytime/anywhere, when my wife manage to **** me off.
And I have a very bad hearing.
Now, someone would consider himself lucky if he has a listening room with background noise lower than some 30dBA
George
Haha - that is a very unfortunate blanking out of a word by the forum!
I think I'm reading something you didn't mean. I know which would get my blood pumping the hardest though...
I think I'm reading something you didn't mean. I know which would get my blood pumping the hardest though...
When you have very high dynamic range with A/D and preamps, it means you can rescue audio from poorly places mics, increasing their gain without too much fear of segregation. Can mean a recordist doesn't have to spend hours setting up each mic perfectly for gain and position - they have much more chance of getting a great result in a rushed scenario or if there is a change during the performance.
Given Millennia make studios recording equipment, isn't this dac being invented for recording monitoring needs and not consumers?
Could there be genuine usefulness that people looking at it from a consumer side may not see? "Zooming in" in real time perhaps instead of having to set the levels for the 32-bit float in the DAW?
Given Millennia make studios recording equipment, isn't this dac being invented for recording monitoring needs and not consumers?
Could there be genuine usefulness that people looking at it from a consumer side may not see? "Zooming in" in real time perhaps instead of having to set the levels for the 32-bit float in the DAW?
True - anechoic doesn't mean well isolated and silent.
They might just happen to have good isolation by build specification, not from anechoic-ness. For some, that build spec may not be necessary, so costs are saved by having less isolation.
Don’t get the big deal here I must admit. The cirrus cs43198 and family do the same thing. Albeit they didn’t bother to push it quite so far but the output switching dynamic range enhancement is very clear in the thd+n vs output level plots.
Machdisk - I suspect the technique is to spread out monotonicity errors so that they do not occur at fixed voltages and times.
BTW, I can hear my heart pumping when I am lying in bed at night.
Ed
BTW, I can hear my heart pumping when I am lying in bed at night.
Ed
Fairly sure the 43198 blends between the two outputs rather than just switching. There is a few dB range where the noise floor comes up instead of it just switching in suddenly. You can see a slight gain disparity in the two regions but they dont appear to cause any noticeable artifacts on transition so they must be doing something to address the problem. I've played with this kind of thing in ADCs and you get audible artifacts from the mismatch if you don't solve that but as I said Cirrus and likely others have done so previously (Doesn't TI have some DRE tech in some of their parts?).
The difference may be in the specific technique used for blending. This is pure speculation, of course!
Ed
Ed
To quote:
"We're about 7-bits better performance [40dB] than any DAC made today, which is why we're calling it a paradigm shift. Note that 40dB is an objective audio improvement of 100X over today’s best DAC specifications," says John La Grou.
Got to love those "paradigm shifts". So is a 1 bit improvement a 1/7th paradigm shift? Sounds like another MQA paradigm shift promotion by Robert Harley of TAS, although Imersiv doesn't yet appear of British invention status to garner gold star "British Invasion" status by Bob. Doesn't seem MQA remained on the mainland of many countries for very long (as before). Seems Bob has lowered the flag on that one.
What appears common in such Hypist Typist print copy as produced by Mr. Grou and others is that it blurs the line between psychoacoustic relevant phenomenon and measurements. Mr. Grou goes on about noise reduction leading to claiming later on "we're about 7-bits better performance [40dB] than any DAC made today". What seems deliberately excluded is the word "noise" from this claim, which would otherwise read "we're about 7-bits better noise performance [40dB] than any DAC made today". The obvious response would be "so what?'. even the cheapest DAC's are already dead silent. What is being offering except total redundancy?
"We're about 7-bits better performance [40dB] than any DAC made today, which is why we're calling it a paradigm shift. Note that 40dB is an objective audio improvement of 100X over today’s best DAC specifications," says John La Grou.
Got to love those "paradigm shifts". So is a 1 bit improvement a 1/7th paradigm shift? Sounds like another MQA paradigm shift promotion by Robert Harley of TAS, although Imersiv doesn't yet appear of British invention status to garner gold star "British Invasion" status by Bob. Doesn't seem MQA remained on the mainland of many countries for very long (as before). Seems Bob has lowered the flag on that one.
What appears common in such Hypist Typist print copy as produced by Mr. Grou and others is that it blurs the line between psychoacoustic relevant phenomenon and measurements. Mr. Grou goes on about noise reduction leading to claiming later on "we're about 7-bits better performance [40dB] than any DAC made today". What seems deliberately excluded is the word "noise" from this claim, which would otherwise read "we're about 7-bits better noise performance [40dB] than any DAC made today". The obvious response would be "so what?'. even the cheapest DAC's are already dead silent. What is being offering except total redundancy?
Hierfi - this is no comment on the content of your post, but your writing style is reminiscent of those normally writing about political conspiracy theories ... e.g. always having little rhyming phrases for things.
What has this got to do with MQA, or is it just another thing you think may make you angry and are looking to see as a conspiracy to fool consumers out of money?
It gets tiring... I'd personally rather see normal language around technical discussions of pros/cons and likelyhoods of claims.
Can't we just do that please? Or am I too sensitive to the expectation of ears-closed online rants and arguments popping up everywhere on forums? I could well be ...
What has this got to do with MQA, or is it just another thing you think may make you angry and are looking to see as a conspiracy to fool consumers out of money?
It gets tiring... I'd personally rather see normal language around technical discussions of pros/cons and likelyhoods of claims.
Can't we just do that please? Or am I too sensitive to the expectation of ears-closed online rants and arguments popping up everywhere on forums? I could well be ...
Thanks for your perspective NATDBERG. I am not angered by conspiracies or conspiracy theories... rather most often bored by them. Some of the dialog is simply an attempt at humour that doesn't always work and isn't intended for everyone to want, like or care about.
Information presented is normally prejudicial to support the sale of a product. This doesn't lead to the conclusion that any such engagement is conspiratorial, rather just normally prejudicial. Yet when advocates present products as "revolutionary" as opposed to "evolutionary" as the foundation of being a "paradigm shift" this suggests magical properties of some device created by some super brain, seemingly far from a state of humility on the part of the promoter or the supporter of such banter (as was the case by Harley respecting MQA).
My aim isn't intended to promote divergence from submissions related to pros/cons of variant mechanisms, rather to poke fun at that dialog which doesn't support that goal. Use of descriptors such as paradigm shifts is worthy of being mocked to diminish its usage as intending to keep dialog focused. As for my writing style its simply as honest as I can make it...mostly.
Information presented is normally prejudicial to support the sale of a product. This doesn't lead to the conclusion that any such engagement is conspiratorial, rather just normally prejudicial. Yet when advocates present products as "revolutionary" as opposed to "evolutionary" as the foundation of being a "paradigm shift" this suggests magical properties of some device created by some super brain, seemingly far from a state of humility on the part of the promoter or the supporter of such banter (as was the case by Harley respecting MQA).
My aim isn't intended to promote divergence from submissions related to pros/cons of variant mechanisms, rather to poke fun at that dialog which doesn't support that goal. Use of descriptors such as paradigm shifts is worthy of being mocked to diminish its usage as intending to keep dialog focused. As for my writing style its simply as honest as I can make it...mostly.
Exactly, this is where the concept falls apart. There are no commercially available resistive dividers with that kind of accuracy or drift, not even the Vishay hermetically sealed metrology-grade parts. And somehow, I also doubt they’re putting the entire assembly in an ovenized enclosure, which is often the case with lab instruments that need ultra-low drift, e.g., in secondary voltage references.