Good. Dig deeper, there are other versions, much more complex, you are going to be double speechless.
Off-topic off.
Do you think he will eventually suss that you are proper Engineer with a full set of letters after your name?
One of the many minions has arrived.
I missed you, I was worried about you.
"Andrea, please accept an invitation to my ignore list."
Did you forget?
AK4499EQ - Best DAC ever
I'm just saying. If you couldnt care less; you should probably make sure to care less. I'm sure you've got more constructive uses of your time. Your happy place, ya dig? Everyone should have something better to do with their time than explaining their obsessions and journey to someone that isn't picking up what you are putting down. You really don't need anyone's approval for that, as long as you don't draw too long a multidimensional bow. Correlation does not always equal causation etc etc. speaking for myself. I know I've disappeared down the rabbithole on more than one occasion. that goes for all parties as well, I'm sure.
This post truth era has taught us many things over the last few years and with a bit of perspective, we can congratulate ourselves, the diy community, for the general respect that is afforded to rigueur in whatever it is, your quest.
This post truth era has taught us many things over the last few years and with a bit of perspective, we can congratulate ourselves, the diy community, for the general respect that is afforded to rigueur in whatever it is, your quest.
Last edited:
Again, I have nothing to prove.
Again, we are building a whole audio system for ourselves following our approach, not the approach of those who uses tons of feedback.
Maybe we care the opinion of John Curl but not the opinion of synapses08. His obsession on the measurements is not our way.
We build, then we measure and finally we listen to.
If you think we don't care about measurements you have not understood.
Indeed, my laboratory is not exactly poor:
- TimePod 5330A with a pair of MTI260 5MHz OCXO as the reference (3 cornered hat measurement)
- Rigol DS1102E
- Rigol DG1022
- LeCroy Wavepro 954
- LeCroy HFP1000 Active Probe
- Keythley 2001
- National GPIB-USB-HS
- Quant Asylum QA401
- Clio Pocket
My co-developer owns a similar lab, one Advantest R3132 Spectrum Analyzer and so on.
Until now we have ended the development of some oscillators and we have measured them with the suitable instrument (the Timepod).
We don't measure an oscillator with a spectrum analyzer but everyone is free to do this, simply we dont care.
The performance of our oscillators are in the region of the best oscillators on the market, so we are happy of the results and now we are developing the other devices of the audio chain (FIFO buffer, DAC and so on).
Again, following our approach not the one of synapses08.
Again we care less than zero about his opinions.
Finally, we share our designs and if someone is interested we can provide PCB and/or semi-finished or finished boards.
No one is obliged to try them.
But the most important thing is that our goal is to listen to the music in the best possible way according to our tastes.
So the final response comes from listening to the system and not from the measurements.
That said, you should understand why we don't really care about the opinion of synapses08.
And after we have seen the schematic of his phono stage we are even less interested.
Last edited:
Well done! You can live happy with a 30 cents XO.
You save a lot of time (around 5 years for developing) and money (several thousands Euro for developing and instruments).
Obviously we are really stupid.
Yes, you may be. Don't know where you got the figure, but TI and ADI often consider jitter and close-in phase noise to be two different things. In reality they are both part of the same thing, but they are measured differently and their predicted effects are calculated differently. So, jitter is what one can measure on a high end scope, close-in phase noise requires other instrumentation with Timepod being one example. Jitter calculations are taken as affecting the noise floor and thus dynamic range. Phase noise effects are more complex in sigma delta dacs, but some similar effects in radar are well known. Again, close-in phase effects are aside from the effects of jitter on noise, but its still not clear to me exactly how good SD dac close-in phase noise needs to be before its effects become negligible. I hope to learn more when Andrea's clocks are ready for testing with my AK4499 dac project.
Last edited:
The only true thing above is that close-in and far-out phase noise have slightly different properties, the most remarkable being that the close in phase noise is not necessary Lorentzian (meaning that it does not add linearly in time), hence it does not necessary have a constant spectral density. While the close-in phase noise is indeed not easy or straightforward to translate into jitter (like the far-out noise is), it is still nothing but noise, and as each and every noise affects... (drums rolling) the system noise.
Everything else, including the alleged effects in audio, is nothing but a mixture of FUD and BS. You and the rest of the jiteratti team (@ Chris), do yourself a favor and educate yourself before talking about (paper is not copyrighted, if somebody wonders).
Everything else, including the alleged effects in audio, is nothing but a mixture of FUD and BS. You and the rest of the jiteratti team (@ Chris), do yourself a favor and educate yourself before talking about (paper is not copyrighted, if somebody wonders).
^^^
The latter paragraph above is opinion only, and should be stated as such.
Same guy above expressed more or less the same opinion about noise floor modulation, and was wrong then too. He won't argue with ESS, but he is happy to speak about fellow forum members in derogatory terms when he disagrees. Hope the appropriate people are taking note.
The latter paragraph above is opinion only, and should be stated as such.
Same guy above expressed more or less the same opinion about noise floor modulation, and was wrong then too. He won't argue with ESS, but he is happy to speak about fellow forum members in derogatory terms when he disagrees. Hope the appropriate people are taking note.
Last edited:
...Mind you, the DAC modulator and "noise floor modulation" have nothing in common. The transient response of the modulator has also nothing to do with "noise floor modulation" so I must assume you have no idea what that is. Admittedly, neither do I, only that I refrain from using BS concepts...
Excerpt below from ESS presentation at: Noise Shaping Sigma Delta DACs - ESS Technology, Inc.
Discussion of some of what audiophiles can hear starts on page 28.
Attachments
Last edited:
^^^
Quoting marketing materials, nothing new in the modus operandi.
"Hyperstream modulator" is just a marketing concept, there is no evidence it is based on anything but the well known principle of sigma-delta modulation. ESS is trying hard to find a differentiator to their competitors - and some gullible (or with an agenda) readers are taking the bait.
Noise shaping has nothing to do with "noise floor modulation". What you prefer to understand by "noise floor modulation" has nothing to do with DACs, but is the result of a limited dynamic range: https://www.ti.com/lit/an/slaa114/s...62409&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F page 6.
A competent discussion about "noise floor modulation" is to be found here: Noise Floor Modulation | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum It is interesting to note who are those clutching on this (false, here) concept.
All these were discussed and quoted before, but you prefer to bring them back periodically, I can only guess why.
P.S. "Non periodic steady state noise"
interesting concept, not to be confused with "periodic steady state noise" . This is a typical word salad, intended to impress the innocents, doesn't exist anywhere in Signal Processing.
Quoting marketing materials, nothing new in the modus operandi.
"Hyperstream modulator" is just a marketing concept, there is no evidence it is based on anything but the well known principle of sigma-delta modulation. ESS is trying hard to find a differentiator to their competitors - and some gullible (or with an agenda) readers are taking the bait.
Noise shaping has nothing to do with "noise floor modulation". What you prefer to understand by "noise floor modulation" has nothing to do with DACs, but is the result of a limited dynamic range: https://www.ti.com/lit/an/slaa114/s...62409&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F page 6.
A competent discussion about "noise floor modulation" is to be found here: Noise Floor Modulation | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum It is interesting to note who are those clutching on this (false, here) concept.
All these were discussed and quoted before, but you prefer to bring them back periodically, I can only guess why.
P.S. "Non periodic steady state noise"
interesting concept, not to be confused with "periodic steady state noise" . This is a typical word salad, intended to impress the innocents, doesn't exist anywhere in Signal Processing.
Last edited:
If you try even harder, maybe you can even prove that a Steinway and a Kawai are the same thing.
You will be able to measure an identical sound spectrum for the C4 played by both pianos.
Then, thanks to your discovery the concert halls could save a lot of money buying a Kawai instead of a Steinway.