You miss something (lot) about Faraday but if you feels like him, it's ok. 😱 You can feel Jesus Christ too!
I tell you, as an advice/tip, to built up the dual topology of circuit is the best way (technically and not) to test the effect an get further good informations.. 🙂
I remember you that we're in 2014..so it's easy to find the dual/simmetrical in a circuit topology. Obviously, you have to be enough expert (as you are) to study you circuit and get the dual.
Simple circuit theory and application.
I don't asking you to build a time-machine or theorize the dark matter ...just the dual.
OK. but can we please be civil about this and stop calling others "fools" and "audiofoolish" - I can assure you that I have been around in audio for a very long time (I am now a sprite and increasingly crusty 62) and there are plenty (some who read threads like this) that take what I do very seriously and don't consider me a fool or a person that makes rash claims.
OK?
And if we can hear it, then it can be measured and if we can hear it, then we have a need to find a way to measure it.
Sometimes the need to measure something is because we hear it first.
Is that not true?
Cheers, Joe
I have done this more than 30 years ago! I claim this is the Didden Filtering Concept! 🙄
Published it in Audio Amateur ages ago.
Yes, everything has already been done, but not by everyone.
What is telling that the people promoting this apparently don't even know these obvious techniques and solutions....
Sad.
Jan
Last edited:
I don't trust ear anymore after i studied it and its limits.
So i measure everything. And i measure 100x times before acclaim a discover. Scientific method, no?
I don't consider you an audiofool but i read a tons of audiofool-like information. So, don't cry.
And this is the worst way to demostrate something technical.
Last edited:
Actually if this is a current output DAC it doesn't work because there is no differential voltage across the cap. The voltage across the cap is zero, because the current input of the i/v converter is zero volts.
In this case, for the crippled ESS dac which can't decide whether it wants to be a voltage out or current out DAC there may be some voltage across the cap, hence there may be some filtering effect.
Jan
Hi Joe,
I'm sure you understand what you are doing. The point is, your mates who don't and call you a guru or a saint for making a standard filter circuit, reflect bad on you.
They display a lot of ignorance and by association lots of people think you are also ignorant. A rock and a hard place.
Edit: maybe you should consider whether you really want it be known as the Rasmussen effect and earn eternal ridicule or just call it what it is....?
jan
Last edited:
OK guys timeout for this thread I think. I'm not going to clean up, BUT enough with the personal stuff or infractions will start to follow! I suggest anyone with an axe to grind thinks twice before posting. Technical discussion only, attack ideas not people.
I've changed the thread title to remove Joe's name. I'm heading for bed, another Mod may see fit to take an axe to the thread and do some cleaning up.Can all of you spare a thought for those of us who are reading these threads and attempting to learn here?
While you are all acting like childish politician in question time, there are in fact a great number of us who are reading the more insightful and informative posts in an attempt to learn more about....oh yeah....audio. Not taking time out of our already busy days to read petty emotional banter.
Now, back on track in relation to the filtering, I think what we need here are some measurements to see whether the proof is in the pudding.
While you are all acting like childish politician in question time, there are in fact a great number of us who are reading the more insightful and informative posts in an attempt to learn more about....oh yeah....audio. Not taking time out of our already busy days to read petty emotional banter.
Now, back on track in relation to the filtering, I think what we need here are some measurements to see whether the proof is in the pudding.
Exactly!
I am open to any suggestion how to go about it, if it can be heard, it can be measured.
Yes, human hearing is flawed, not so much what we hear, but how we hear. You can listen to the same music twice and hear different things, this kind of hearing has been called "steered" hearing, because the mind "steers" what we hear. So the second or third time we hear it, then we don't hear the same thing. So we can trick ourselves because that is what we want.
This is why Reviewers [must] take a long time before they put pen to paper. They must evaluate the whole and not in part - and avoid pitfalls.
But, on the other hand, what's the point of measuring something if it has no sonic implication?
So, there is need for balance, need to be patient, being careful, not rash.
Cheers, Joe
PS: We are now up to 171 posts and nobody has gotten their soldering irons hotted up since it started. Is the thread failing at the first step? After it has been tried, then we will have the real incentive to figure it out. That is the way DIY works.
Last edited:
Yes, it may be sad... One can not know everything at once as others do.
The merit of Joe is that he shared this information, when he found out about it while someone else didn`t, or kept it for himself...
Again, this about how one may chose name this effect is marginal, and for sure not the main point of the discussion here. This is more anecdotal...
The technical things are more important here. So, let`s hold on to the technical discussion, and do not foolish one on another as someone do it here. This it may be in fact sad... and not in the spirit of this forum/thread.
For someone's satisfaction, the name of the effect it were removed from the title of the thread. So keep cool about, and get back to the technical...
Do you listen your music with a scope connected on your gear to prove that what you hear is what you see, or opposite?
Happy listening then!
BTW, nobody claim discovering things here. Just found out on something, shared, and need to discuss it... with others who are willing to do that.
Sigh, how often have we heard that old, tired one?
Listening to music in order to enjoy it is one thing. Trying to figure out if something actually makes an audible difference is another thing. You need controlled, double-blind ABX listening, but measurements can also help verify if there is a real difference or not, and what kind of difference it is.
Very true!
This was, and is the main reason starting this thread. To make known to many as possible about, so that many will try this and have own impressions/conclusions, then discuss further about, trying find out more.
I strongly encourage the critics of this filtering technique, as others who read this thread, to use some caps on own gears (as this is so simple as taking a beer), before preaching form the books... or theorize the concept.
Coris, I've the luck (or the skill) to get the sound i want from my stuff. 🙂 Do you?
But this isn't the point. It's easy to troll ears (it's easy to troll each human sense, by the way).
Back IT.
The point is: if you want a technical thread, you must use technical methods. For example, scientific method.
Nothing strange about that.
You have found a phenomena. That's good.
But scientific method isn't about "i've found something", it's about prove it with actual technology.
In this case, we are talking about DAC & passives...so nothing alien!
It's easy to get the dual circuit: current DAC become voltage DAC, differential cap become common-mode choke.
This is simple circuit theory, but very powerful to study a phenomena.
Do you study the dual topology to get more information about primary topology?!
This is discuss, this is technical example, etc. and it's the only way to shut up every doubt.
Otherwise, science become anarchy where everyone say "i've found something" with some funny self-explained theories...
But this isn't the point. It's easy to troll ears (it's easy to troll each human sense, by the way).
Back IT.
The point is: if you want a technical thread, you must use technical methods. For example, scientific method.
Nothing strange about that.
You have found a phenomena. That's good.
But scientific method isn't about "i've found something", it's about prove it with actual technology.
In this case, we are talking about DAC & passives...so nothing alien!
It's easy to get the dual circuit: current DAC become voltage DAC, differential cap become common-mode choke.
This is simple circuit theory, but very powerful to study a phenomena.
Do you study the dual topology to get more information about primary topology?!
This is discuss, this is technical example, etc. and it's the only way to shut up every doubt.
Otherwise, science become anarchy where everyone say "i've found something" with some funny self-explained theories...
Last edited:
I fully agree that measurements is to be done in this case. I supported this from very beginning. I did myself some of in a "raw" mode first, and I will do it more in details later on.
The point is to find a reasonable balance in all this, not rejecting in advance some perceptual facts, because are not to come out from measurements...
The perceptual is very easy to be reproduced in this particular case. The discussion here is to be found the right ways to measure, to prove by accurate measurements these perceptual facts. Then we can conclude something.
If Jan wants to claim the credit, let him.
But did he listen for any sweet spot?
How far was the response down at 20KHz?
Over to you Jan - no problem.
Cheers, Joe
PS: Music was invented before measuring equipment. I trust measurements only when they have been interpreted correctly - and I know as I do LOTS of them.
There is exactly what we try to do it here, by discussing this, experimenting, and so on. Nobody argue on this. I suppose...
What about you to solder yourself some caps on your DAC, hear the result and we talk about later? Or what about to your qualified help for all of us (with your detailed and accurate ways of analysing), so to be found out more in this case?
Last edited:
What about to take us a brake in all this sterile discussions about who have discovered what, the name of the inventor, and so on?
What about to just DIY more, both experimenting on this, do measurements, and then come here to discuss the results, based first on some facts, or own experiences?
What about to just DIY more, both experimenting on this, do measurements, and then come here to discuss the results, based first on some facts, or own experiences?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.