I'm trying to get you to man up and either get data or do some actual listening tests. You're making two claims, one of which is extraordinary. An honest practitioner will test these claims and report the data and procedures, without worrying about whether or not he's right or wrong. What matters to an honest practitioner is WHAT is right or wrong.
I am urging you to be one of those.
I am urging you to be one of those.
Why don't I just go and shoot myself in the head? That would be easier.
Two? Well, they are there for you to test whether they are real or not - I can't make you do that, only urge you because I know you have the capability to test it for yourself - but maybe you don't even trust your own hearing. Surely, that can't be right?
But I won't be browbeaten by you - next thing I should expect is your hands come through the screen and reach for my throat... at least that is how you are coming across, it's all a bit unreal and feral.
Off to bed. And I will sleep very well after listening to something you don't even know exists. Your loss.
Buona notte.
It still wouldn't support or refute your hypothesis. Put some of your considerable and impressive energy into doing real experiments and reporting the procedures and results.
Shooting yourself in the head is probably a bit drastic. If you could just refrain from posting all the personal stuff. Can you not see that most of the responses are a direct result of the way you answered Greg Stewart's question from post #156.
"I think I have said everything I need to, no need to add fuel to a non-existing fire, except please read the first six posts, it's all there and now will be permanently. That was the plan. Anybody can now test it and I can sleep well."
The result is lighting the fire and adding the fuel.
Although, I must admit, this one from Coris really made me laugh.
"Well, you got the Joe`s answer..."
Which was no answer at all.
"I think I have said everything I need to, no need to add fuel to a non-existing fire, except please read the first six posts, it's all there and now will be permanently. That was the plan. Anybody can now test it and I can sleep well."
The result is lighting the fire and adding the fuel.
Although, I must admit, this one from Coris really made me laugh.
"Well, you got the Joe`s answer..."
Which was no answer at all.
My apologies for suggesting that you were intending to patent the idea. However, I am puzzled: exactly how did you intend legally protecting your idea so you could divulge it to DIYers while at the same time collect royalties (Improving Digital Audio – A New Digital to Analog Conversion Post-DAC Solution:) from manufacturers? Did you really think that business people will pay for something which is freely available and unprotected?Joe Rasmussen said:
I am puzzled too.. Why do you use this thread to change personal messages with Joe? Please use the private message service of this forum for such discussion. At least the discussion here is about a different subject. Please read the title of this thread.
Alternative it may be to create your own thread about patents, royalties, business, and so on...
Alternative it may be to create your own thread about patents, royalties, business, and so on...
Last edited:
No, it is completely different, this is how it should look:
I have already shown this elsewhere to Scott - so he should know. It is very different indeed.
I don't see "completely" different, I claim then and now shorting the code step glitches to ground is the main benefit and as demonstrated it can be done keeping the audio signal perfectly flat.
Been here before, the burden of proof that your component changes make the outcome "completely" different is on you. That circuit was later presented with measurements of two channels side by side using an HP spectrum analyzer showing a large reduction of glitch energy and other EMI from the DAC getting to the output/input of the op-amp.
For those who have not seen it the R's, C's, and the amplifier's UGBW form a critically damped 2 pole system so it is flat in the audio BW and the noise peaking can be handled by additional gentle filtering outside the audio range.
BTW I never anywhere made any claims of audibility only that under some circumstances periodic glitch energy can create spurious harmonic energy. I leave it to others to explore.
As has been explained before copyright of schematics does not protect any ideas represented there. Yes, I went to the PTO and downloaded the actual US law as written it is quite explicit and elaborate.
Last edited:
You fail to appreciate the role of Human Shields. It's a difficult and thankless job.
Someone made the point in this thread that we should not 'attack' Joe as he has made his 'idea' freely available. I responded publicly that I recalled he was considering a patent. I have now publicly apologised for that - a public mistake needs a public apology.Coris said:
It is common for threads to contain snippets of what might be wrongly regarded as private conversation. This happens when one or other of the people involved believes that the issue is of common interest, so intends to have a public conversation. Joe is free to answer my puzzlement, or leave me puzzled.
It is also common for threads to contain discussion of ancillary topics which relate to the main topic. It is for the moderators to determine when this gets out of hand. Joe's commercial arrangements, or lack of them, was not raised by me in this thread but by one of his followers.
I would much prefer to talk about circuits, but when I tried that in one of the previous threads my attempts were brushed aside.
Scott, do I sense that you are maybe just a little more, how do I say it, measured, than some of the others here. I sure hope so.
Nothing is off the table, anybody who wishes can construct and measure, some have only the capability to construct and listen, and they are the ones I care most about. But measure? Be my guest. Everything I know has been tabled.
I have said it before, there is something here to be measured, but as with anything that needs to be measured, you need the correct stimuli that triggers something unexpected - but because it is unexpected, that makes it difficult to figure out how to capture it. I can do THD and spectral distortion, but I suspect this will mean little. If you want me to do those and post them, that is easy. But I doubt that will solve anything. But I will do it if somebody asks for it nicely.
So we need a measurement guru, and that I am not. Somebody who takes this seriously and goes about it methodically, perhaps even getting inspired somehow. But the effect is so audible, even to a degree that can be described as startling, so something is happening to the signal processing - and we all know that looking at a waveform on a scope, only gross distortion is obvious and that regular harmonic distortion does not show it up unless really bad. I suspect we need to be some kind up impulse that can trigger a measurement that shows an obvious irregularity.
So we need a measurement hero!
I thought I had somebody in mind and indeed he indicated he had seen something that could explain it, using some kind of burst of DSD signal. Alas, I have tried to contact him and he is clearly busy... so have to be patient while people want to chop my head off. lol
At least I have a sense of humour to get past that.
But we do have some pointers. The effect is not unsimilar to reducing audible jitter (which I suppose you agree is for real) and also that it must have something to do with the delta-sigma modulator - any timing errors there is converted into jitter, even power supply noise. As Ken said, I believe earlier, this is something in the time domain.
But the problem is this, if this is not taken seriously, then where is the motivation to figure it out going to come from? I mean, Stuart can demand proof, and in his mind the only proof is a measurement, but he clearly does not take it seriously, so we have a Catch 22, those who may/could actually measure it won't be inclined.
So my optimism is that we will eventually find something to measure, that something is clearly happening in the processing that does something to the waveform we end up listening to.
My gut feeling? This is a jitter reduction thingy.
Another clue, that doing this to a PCM1704 has no affect at all. Think about that for a second, because that is rather significant, if indeed we had a bias, would that bias not also exist with the PCM1704?
I have quite a few friends into ladder and NOS-DACs, it is almost a religion with them. But I have to say, what is discussed here does NOT improve those DACs. It does absolutely zero for them. If there was a bias, wouldn't the bias also apply to them - but it does nothing for them.
But it really comes down to credibility - tear credibility down and nothing get taken seriously. If it is not taken seriously, then there is no motive to find out what is going on - and this is with particular interest to a narrow subject, that of only delta-sigma DACs and may I say more pointedly, something to do with delta-sigma modulators.
Re your AD797 I/V converter and that cap you added. It does not define a low-pass filter on the AD1862 in your schematic. You need an actual defined RC filter on the output of the AD1862 and before the AD797's virtual ground, to do that. The cap cannot function as a low pass filter at the point where you have ground-to-ground. So the R is required.
So while you had your reasons for adding that 2000pF (and I have seen Sony doing similarly), this is then an entirely different proposition, even if it looks superficially the same, it is in fact entirely different.
So, no disrespect meant:
THIS WILL NOT WORK WITH AD1862 AS I BELIEVE IT IS A PROPER MULTI-BIT LADDER DAC!
This will bring it down to around not quite -2dB @ 20KHz. It can be corrected elsewhere if desired. But as several independant experimenters have now confirmed, setting the filter to -1dB has little effect, but then a small change of around 0.2dB indicates a knee, something akin to a switch, and you need to get past that point to hear it. And it is surprising - and yes, it causes disbelief, but it is still happening.
All the naysayers have to do is try it. They are just as capable as I am, if not more so. But have you noticed, none of them have. This is so easy for them to test it, I am sure they could do it in their sleep with one hand tied behind their back. So what is the problem? Seems they might even like what they hear, wouldn't that be nice. 🙂
Nothing wrong with doing a bit DIY, isn't that why we are here?
Cheers, Joe
-
Last edited:
Wow! I thank you, that was very gracious of you. It makes me feel a bit better.
But I must say that the idea that I have 'followers' is not how I see it, that sounds sort of pseudo-religious and cultist. No thanks.
Maybe 'supporters' is a better description, not sure. Maybe I being perceived as the underdog helps? 🙂
But I thank you again - maybe peace can now break out.
Cheerfully, Joe
Jitter? Really?
Since I said precisely the opposite, I can't really comment on that. Time to do an experiment, Joe. Measurement, sure, ears-only listening, even better. But something besides trying to shift burden of proof of YOUR claims onto other people.
Since I said precisely the opposite, I can't really comment on that. Time to do an experiment, Joe. Measurement, sure, ears-only listening, even better. But something besides trying to shift burden of proof of YOUR claims onto other people.
Yes it does, sorry you are wrong. Easily analysed pencil and paper, find some articles on TIA's and high capacitance photo diodes the frequency response is rolled off at the geometric mean of the R/C time constant and the unity gain BW of the op-amp. The small cap tweaks the net response to a critically damped two pole system. Someone PLEASE run a sim in LTSPICE and post the resuilts.
I'll repeat this was built, measured, tested and published it works EXACTLY as I said. Wikipedia has some Bode plots you can start there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transimpedance_amplifier
EDIT - Just noticed your comments on the AD1862 (it does not matter) and jitter (this is such a stretch that at least some hypothesis is needed) and clearly not even a first order on paper analysis will come forth. Jerry Graeme beat this stuff to death before there was SPICE.
Last edited:
I am sure it did, not disputing that.
But it does not achieve this amplitude response on the DAC pin outs:
It is the Blue plot we are trying to achieve.
We are conflating two different things into one.
The above target curve only works to advantage when applied to d-s DACs and not ladder DACs like AD1862. Hence we are dealing with a mechanism that must take that into account. But if one is convinced that such a mechanism doesn't exist and hence don't even look for it, then you reaction is understandable. But is there not also a possibility that this is about shooting the messenger? Then we have eliminated the need to look, to test out to one's own satisfaction what is real or not.
Hardly takes a genius to test it - since my word is not good enough, it has to be done by somebody who opposed the idea as folly and then actually tests it and comes around and says "hey, guys, guess what, I know this is weird, but there is actually something to this."
Odd thing is, that did happen - then he got targeted... Ken Newton.
Wow! Better to demonise that being demonised? "I don't want to be demonised, I don't want to be ridiculed" - so we have paralysis set in. It's hard to not draw that conclusion, sigh.
Cheers, Joe
-
- Status
- Not open for further replies.