I think here, about this subject, someone may misunderstand what is actually all about. Here is not about any "customers", is not about advertising for a product or even for an "effect" one should buy it, or should accept it. There is not here about a "producer" or manufacturer who need to convince someone else to buy his products, or implement his approach for money or profit. None is selling here this "effect".
Here is about to share informations. For FREE. As we can see, one of us used his private time and worked for free, to make known to others about an idea. No more obligation whatsoever, and no profit at all, making publicly this/his idea. Everybody can use it for free, everybody can implement it, and do what one may want with it. Someone may find this idea useful, may trust it, may experiment with it, and/or may implement it, use it. Someone else may be sceptic to the results and about the idea itself. They are free to reject it, or ignore it, or express them arguments against such approach, and not conduct any experiment at all in this direction.
I did so myself. I have read about this cap approach, in a post here. I was sceptic first, but shortly after I thought maybe is worth to try it. It worked somehow. I tried it in an another circumstances, and did not worked. I concluded then (wrong) that this trick it may not work. I improved my system, and applied again this approach. It worked, it works and I know now how to do it to make it working and reproduce it the effect in every system I may implement it. I did my own measurements and I have now my preliminary conclusions. It could be fine to know more, but to go further in details, one need to be part of a team, or a collaboration it may be needed to further progress into this. A trial for collaboration it was this forum/thread. It seems to me that such collaboration and progress in knowing more about this, is not just an easy task...
What it left to be done then? Only just use it as it is this trick/approach and enjoy the results. Eventually doing it for those interested in improvements. As Joe said: "enjoy the music", by using this this cap as presented here and there.
There is no any obligation from anybody to present proofs and/or measurements or so. If one are willing to do so, there is all right, and it will be very appreciated. Pretending somebody else to work for free only to convince one or another sceptic to use this approach is far from realistic, and even impolite...
Here is about to share informations. For FREE. As we can see, one of us used his private time and worked for free, to make known to others about an idea. No more obligation whatsoever, and no profit at all, making publicly this/his idea. Everybody can use it for free, everybody can implement it, and do what one may want with it. Someone may find this idea useful, may trust it, may experiment with it, and/or may implement it, use it. Someone else may be sceptic to the results and about the idea itself. They are free to reject it, or ignore it, or express them arguments against such approach, and not conduct any experiment at all in this direction.
I did so myself. I have read about this cap approach, in a post here. I was sceptic first, but shortly after I thought maybe is worth to try it. It worked somehow. I tried it in an another circumstances, and did not worked. I concluded then (wrong) that this trick it may not work. I improved my system, and applied again this approach. It worked, it works and I know now how to do it to make it working and reproduce it the effect in every system I may implement it. I did my own measurements and I have now my preliminary conclusions. It could be fine to know more, but to go further in details, one need to be part of a team, or a collaboration it may be needed to further progress into this. A trial for collaboration it was this forum/thread. It seems to me that such collaboration and progress in knowing more about this, is not just an easy task...
What it left to be done then? Only just use it as it is this trick/approach and enjoy the results. Eventually doing it for those interested in improvements. As Joe said: "enjoy the music", by using this this cap as presented here and there.
There is no any obligation from anybody to present proofs and/or measurements or so. If one are willing to do so, there is all right, and it will be very appreciated. Pretending somebody else to work for free only to convince one or another sceptic to use this approach is far from realistic, and even impolite...
Last edited:
But there is no information, merely a claim that a certain filter circuit produces an audible effect which is alleged to be not due to the filtering effect of the filter. As for FREE, I seem to recall that Joe was talking about patenting the 'idea' and charging a licence fee for commercial use of it? Has he now changed his mind about this?Coris said:
Would it be impolite to question someone who 'invented' a gizmo which you attach to the outside of a car to give better fuel performance, and which appears to work (if it works at all) by slightly modifying the airflow around the vehicle, yet the 'inventor' claims that it does not work by modifying airflow but by affecting the internal working of the engine?
Coris, I think this is not so different from another "effect" in audio, which is a zobel for impedance flattening in a speaker or amplifier. What do you think of this zobel? Do you think it is audible? If so, do you think it is an improvement? If you think so, do you have any idea why it is not widely used?
Regarding being honest to the "customers", it doesn't have to be related to business intents. If nothing is a secret, I think it is very human if we don't want to look stupid for trying to explain something that we don't fully understand.
Being honest means we explain our reasoning in making a hypothesis, such that when it is proven wrong it will benefit others from understanding the real situation.
Starting from explaining why this has to be with Sigma Delta and not with ladder or non oversampling DAC. For example because we aim for the residu of the excess noise [below 20 kHz] that is not fully removed by the digital filter. So that is why we roll off before 20 kHz etc etc...
Is there an explanation that it has to be a current output DAC? Or that the passive filter must be prior to an I/V?
That's what I mean with being honest...
Regarding being honest to the "customers", it doesn't have to be related to business intents. If nothing is a secret, I think it is very human if we don't want to look stupid for trying to explain something that we don't fully understand.
Being honest means we explain our reasoning in making a hypothesis, such that when it is proven wrong it will benefit others from understanding the real situation.
Starting from explaining why this has to be with Sigma Delta and not with ladder or non oversampling DAC. For example because we aim for the residu of the excess noise [below 20 kHz] that is not fully removed by the digital filter. So that is why we roll off before 20 kHz etc etc...
Is there an explanation that it has to be a current output DAC? Or that the passive filter must be prior to an I/V?
That's what I mean with being honest...
Sorry, this thread it (should) not discuss what someone it may do in his private life.
The fact here and now is that the informations about this cap, how to be used to obtain one or another result it is explicit showed/presented in the beginning of this thread, for free and for everybody, to try it, to experiment with it, to appreciate the results or not, to measure it, etc.
Sorry (again) but your above post it looks to me as out of topic.
Jay said:
Sure, formal listening tests are nice to have for the reasons you cite. So, please, do point out all the other DIY projects and experiments on this entire site where such tests were equally expected to be performed with some project or experiment.
DF96 said:
Yes, you have the the freedom to challenge, which you have clearly exercised. Just as the target has the freedom to address a challenge for subjective proof (which is what we are talking about, not theoretical proof) in whatever manner they feel appropriate and worth the time and resources to provide. You've made a challenge and it has been responded to by Joe, if not to your satisfaction. This is frequently the case for most discussions around subjective sound quality, whether tubes versus transistors, high feedback versus low feedback, etc, etc. Should you not be satisfied with Joe's response, you are free to say so, and just as free to not waste any more of your time. Instead, you persist. What is the constructive value of repeating the same request for formal listening tests ad nauseum, and why on this one topic, it's hardly the only one that's controversial?
You keep alluding to Joe claiming to have discovered some flaw in circuit theory, so here's my challenge to you. Please provide the quote where Joe claims this. I'll wait.
SY said:
No, I suggest that it's not. This is DIY. The burden of proof is on each individual person curious enough to evaluate this or any other suggested experiment. No commercial kit is being sold. The suggested experiment is simple, safe and inexpensive. Anyone unconvinced, such as yourself, is certainly free to not spend their time and effort on conducting this or any other experiment. It very much seems, however, that such an freedom of choice approach isn't satisfactory for some. Only they know why.
Obviously he has decided not to do that, otherwise this thread would not exist.
So your comment is moot.
dave
Indeed!
I may kindly suggest to all those preoccupied to comment on persons, to not do that, and to others who read such comments to not answer, or comment further.
This thread is not about one or another individuals, but about a capacitor of some sort connected as presented, its particularities as a filtering device, and its impact over the signal.
Can we please focus the discussion strictly on subject?
I may kindly suggest to all those preoccupied to comment on persons, to not do that, and to others who read such comments to not answer, or comment further.
This thread is not about one or another individuals, but about a capacitor of some sort connected as presented, its particularities as a filtering device, and its impact over the signal.
Can we please focus the discussion strictly on subject?
I'm sorry Joe for any misunderstanding, clearly I'm missing something here. Such tip-toeing around a modest proposal I truly don't see it. Are proposals and measurements to confirm them off the table?
No, I did more that 20yr. ago. Still no solid arguments that what I published on my AD797 data sheet is materially different. I guess that's not on the table.
Yes, any claims of audibility probably depend on what's further on in the signal chain. In any case if you have no interest in doing due diligence and testing both DB this all is just more jaw flapping and I truly do not want to participate in this exercise.
Well I'm on the naughty step on this thread so treading very carefully. I have an interest, but no suitable DAC. So for now learning.
Joe is commercial. And anyone, commercial or not, who makes extraordinary claims has burden of proof on them.
People suggest all kinds of incorrect things. That's the downside of this forum not censoring any technical discussion. I'd rather live with that than have discussion limited, which is why I don't participate much in any other websites.
That's what I have expected to read, learn and understand. How the filter impact the sound... But I saw nothing?
I'm not one of those who think that this is inaudible. I just want to read or understand how it can be audible.
http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/AD797.pdf
Edit: I missed your edit (even though quoted) when I went and grabbed the DS. Still (hopefully) helpful for others. It's a lowpass + noise gain combo (as others will better be able to describe than yours truly).
Last edited:
High energy - I laughed for a while at this. If you have actually spoken to Joe
on the phone when he has a new idea, you will understand more fully the
meaning of high energy!
But I have a very good saying which goes something like, 'show me what's
left when the honeymoons over'
IOW, we all ride the initial wave of excitement with new ideas, people,
whatever. When that fades - show me the real substance that is left. Show
me the real foundations of what you are getting excited about that will
support actual longevity.
I suppose in this case we are still waiting. 🙂
cheers
Tez.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.