I am intrigued by that word "valid" - what does it really mean? My experience is "valid" and yours is not? I have a "bias" so you must have one too? My experience is the correct one, it is "valid" because I have insulated it from "bias"?
I only say this because in this instance, what is pronounced "valid" is based on one singular aim, to remove "bias" - sorry, this is just too narrowly defined. This is way too 2D for me and there has to be at least one more dimension involved in a 3D world.
I believe I know that third dimension - and it has been ignored - and I am quite willing to write about it.
Maybe switch to Blowtorch II?
Cheers, Joe
I only say this because in this instance, what is pronounced "valid" is based on one singular aim, to remove "bias" - sorry, this is just too narrowly defined. This is way too 2D for me and there has to be at least one more dimension involved in a 3D world.
I believe I know that third dimension - and it has been ignored - and I am quite willing to write about it.
Maybe switch to Blowtorch II?
Cheers, Joe
true but most don't try to have things like circuits, tests or "effects" they didn't invent named for them.
Last edited:
Some did? Got a problem with that? Why?
And who named what? Not me. Somebody else.
See, now we get this stupid personal stuff - where is the objectivity in that? I am not here to have personality clashes.
So... can we get this back on track?
IT IS THIS:
What has been done here is a bit beyond the the ordinary, actually post the circuits and invite testing.
Anybody can now test it - thanks to me. I should be applauded.
Will you test it? Will Stuart? Well, guess what, some will. Will that be you or just making comments on the sidelines? But you have the skills no doubt to test it yourself, right?
I think this is a fair question to ask.
Cheers, Joe
You are the one who invites the stupid personal stuff. Stop the long off topic stories. Reply to questions with short clear answers and to say that it is beyond the ordinary to actually post the circuits is incorrect and an insult to members who post their work at DiyAudio.
Inviting insults? Excuse me, but what gives? Where is the insult?
It's a free world, I don't tell other people to answer according to any strict formula. Seen plenty of longer posts than mine. So I am a little surprised?
Eight schematics at the outset, never been done before in my experience. Submitted them for testing. What have I done that is so wrong?
Will you be doing any testing? That is what the thread is about. I did not bring up any other topic, only responding to points raised. What I have done is totally valid - and I believe very honest.
I don't understand it, why you sound upset? I wish we could just go out for a beer - maybe one day we might? Would that be so bad?
Cheer up, OK?
Last edited:
Yes.
But "current" DACs are totally predictable, has been so far when working into Virtual Ground I/V. Then 2 x 3R3 and 1uF are pretty golden.
Individually configurable opamps. I also use CircuitMaker.
Last edited:
From now on there will be posts that I will simply ignore. I won't contribute to any further deterioration.
The topic is clear:
"Practical Implementations of Alternative Post-DAC Filtering" and not about double-blind tests etc. I can be approached on Blowtorch II if that discussion is desired.
So what remains is simple: Will you be testing the idea?
A Yes or No will suffice.
If yes, gives us your feedback.
The topic is clear:
"Practical Implementations of Alternative Post-DAC Filtering" and not about double-blind tests etc. I can be approached on Blowtorch II if that discussion is desired.
So what remains is simple: Will you be testing the idea?
A Yes or No will suffice.
If yes, gives us your feedback.
Last edited:
I agree that the virtual ground makes the variations in between DAC near irrelevant. However, 2x3R3 and 1uF are golden only with some opamps and particular values of I/V resistors. Otherwise the FR curve can vary all over the place.
You wanted differential, here are the results:
Attachments
anybody but YOU can test it, because apparently in your mind Joe already did all the hard work LOL the trivial part is left to the reader. I know throw out some more schematics something might stick to the wall. FWIW some guy sticking caps at various places around a ADC isn't science.
Joe, I wish we could go out for a beer too, then I could better explain what I mean by "inviting" (personal stuff) without offending anyone, or would it turn into a bar fight?
The answer to your question is Yes and I would have done so already if I owned a digital device with a DAC with differential outputs (excluding a CD Cats SA3).
I did some simulations during the last two threads and hours of downloaded service manuals and datasheets on the DACs I own.
The answer to your question is Yes and I would have done so already if I owned a digital device with a DAC with differential outputs (excluding a CD Cats SA3).
I did some simulations during the last two threads and hours of downloaded service manuals and datasheets on the DACs I own.
Very funny. I can LOL too.
Nothing trivial about it. There are some real challenges here - I did not present a Dynaco by-the-numbers kit, where A goes to B, and C goes to Z and if you don't know your alphabet soup, you will end up with a big BANG! 😀
Is that what you think this is about? OK, if that gives you chuckle and I have made your day, good for you. 🙂
The question remains, are you going to try it?
If not, somebody will. They are probably waiting for suitable parts they have ordered. Time is on my side. I actually feel very comfortable about this.
Cheers, Joe
Sure, some guy trying filaments of varying compositions inside an evacuated glass bulb wasn't science either I guess. After all, when has experimentation ever had anything to do with "science"? 😕
For anyone who wants to know if a difference can be heard without peeking. Otherwise, this is just one more tired "omigod, it's amazing!" piece of audio lore, same category as magic rocks, green ink, or whatever. That's why your refusal to do any proper experiments is disappointing.
I have never been in a fight with anybody - I just walk away.
But I just don't like this mean stuff that some of you engage in here. Seems that is part of the internet age, being confrontational and all that. Here in Australia we have a phrase "shirt-fronting" - maybe you can picture it? 😀
Well, we have been told by one Moderator not even to mention the last two... ahem.
Yes, I have a folder on my computer that holds every datasheet on every DAC I can find. Have you ever looked at Sony VC24? Not a DAC as such, but you could use it as if it was.
I don't mind the simulations, especially if they showed up any answers - I keep saying it, if an answer was found, then I would be happier than anybody here, because clearly I am in the hot seat, right?
But why would you try to find an answer to something that you may actually doubt even exists? We are talking human nature. OTH, if you were to actually replicate what has been suggested, then you would know for sure if there is anything of worth pursuing. That's motivation.
In the meantime, we are seeking an actual measurement, something physical to explain it. I am hopeful. It may take time, but may also be quicker than you think.
BTW, there are some clues here - I would be happy to list them.
Cheers, Joe
What's so hard? You have AudioTester. Maybe even ARTA. Measure before, several times to get your error bars, then measure after, comparing measurements to the same filter poles placed elsewhere.
Sure, some guy trying filaments of varying compositions inside an evacuated glass bulb wasn't science either I guess. After all, when has experimentation ever had anything to do with "science"? 😕
- Status
- Not open for further replies.