Digital signals are not affected by the same tweaks that would affect an analog setup. Digital either works or it doesn't. A one or a zero are easy to tell apart, so confusion is unlikely. Added jitter is a possibility, but buffering the data & reclocking it can fix that. It's nearly impossible to fix up a distorted analog signal, on the other hand.
Sorta. Say, in the case of a SPDIF or a TOSLINK signal, the audio data is conveyed in digital form. Timing between signal edge transitions contains analog time information for reconstructing the digital audio data back into the analog domain. In that case, once the analog timing information is damaged, there is no generally no way to reconstruct it. A new time reference can be substituted either by ASRC with a new low jitter reference clock, or by FIFO buffering with a new low jitter reference clock (MCLK). The latter method can restore the digital audio without loss so long as no underflow nor overflow occurs in the FIFO buffer. In the case of ASRC use, the recovered digital audio data, and thus the analog audio signal, will no longer be considered to to have undergone "bit-perfect" processing.
In other cases than SPDIF or TOSLINK type signals, the clock signal may carry only analog time information. It need not even represent a rational number value, as it is purely analog. If the reference clock is located nearby, it may be possible to reclock local I2S signals into a form optimal for a dac that follows. In some cases that reclocking process may require some low jitter delays to be added to certain I2S signals after reclocking.
Also, so-called "reclocking" circuitry may or may not include an isolation stage to reduce possible ground coupled noise problems.
In other cases than SPDIF or TOSLINK type signals, the clock signal may carry only analog time information. It need not even represent a rational number value, as it is purely analog. If the reference clock is located nearby, it may be possible to reclock local I2S signals into a form optimal for a dac that follows. In some cases that reclocking process may require some low jitter delays to be added to certain I2S signals after reclocking.
Also, so-called "reclocking" circuitry may or may not include an isolation stage to reduce possible ground coupled noise problems.
Last edited:
After finishing a new AD converter, before burn in I always butcher a chicken on it. This puts more live soundstage in the inter bit information. The noise floor significantly drops after the chicken is gone, this has been confimed by blind tests.
That is absolutely no answer to my question or my request (in post #318).
We are not in kindergarten here 🤔.
So once again:
what's wrong with the bootstrap principle?
Bootstrapping is simply a method of positive feedback. Either use it for what it is, or not. As a generalization, designers who shy away from NFB will usually shy away from positive feedback as well. There are exceptions of course because it does have the advantage/allure of simplicity. But since some nonlinearity and additional open loop gain are usually created….
Often serious technical concerns have personal, very subjective causes.
I see and hear so many unfounded allegations about any field of audio, it really makes me shake my head. Already got a migrane.
As a person deeply rooted into physics, it is often hard for me to avoid sarkastic comments.
There are two types of people that make me really sad and angry in audio.
I feel sad for these people that truly believe in some lie that has been put into their mind by some "authority" of any kind. They repeat it, even after been shown that it is just nonsense, because they are too proud to admitt they have been fooled.
Angry make me people that constantly tell such lies to make unjustified profits. The worst are the ones that mix lies with reality. Very common tactic
OK, both is not only found in audio, there are much more serious regions of life infected by these two problems, like health, education, religion or politics.
Anyway, who is more stupid, the guy that pours a bottle of "Enemosers Cxy varnisch" over his DAC's pcb or the one that uses chicken blood for the same task? I think in the end the chicken makes more sense, because finaly you can make a nice Coq au Vine from it, while listening to some nice music. The varnish is a total loss without any benefit.
I see and hear so many unfounded allegations about any field of audio, it really makes me shake my head. Already got a migrane.
As a person deeply rooted into physics, it is often hard for me to avoid sarkastic comments.
There are two types of people that make me really sad and angry in audio.
I feel sad for these people that truly believe in some lie that has been put into their mind by some "authority" of any kind. They repeat it, even after been shown that it is just nonsense, because they are too proud to admitt they have been fooled.
Angry make me people that constantly tell such lies to make unjustified profits. The worst are the ones that mix lies with reality. Very common tactic
OK, both is not only found in audio, there are much more serious regions of life infected by these two problems, like health, education, religion or politics.
Anyway, who is more stupid, the guy that pours a bottle of "Enemosers Cxy varnisch" over his DAC's pcb or the one that uses chicken blood for the same task? I think in the end the chicken makes more sense, because finaly you can make a nice Coq au Vine from it, while listening to some nice music. The varnish is a total loss without any benefit.
Of course. But who is to judge what is a lie and what is truth? For one notoriously wrongheaded example of people jumping to conclusions about what is a lie, let's take John Curl's description of what he heard from Bybee devices. Did John lie, or did he hear something real? Most people jumped to the conclusion he was lying. I don't think so. I think he was telling the truth and too many guys who thought they knew everything about what is or isn't possible jumped to conclusions and blamed an innocent guy for lying. They severely damaged Mr. Curl's reputation when in fact he did nothing wrong. Why do I say that? Here is what I think happened:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/funniest-snake-oil-theories.234829/post-7154881
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/funniest-snake-oil-theories.234829/post-7153981
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/funniest-snake-oil-theories.234829/post-7154011
And its not only about John Curl and Bybee devices. There are other attacked upon claims that have never seriously been thought through by self-described physicists.
Schumann:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/why-the-objectivists-will-never-win.403848/post-7485144
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/why-the-objectivists-will-never-win.403848/post-7485255
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/why-the-objectivists-will-never-win.403848/post-7485269
Purple Felt Pen:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/why-the-objectivists-will-never-win.403848/post-7486089
Wire directivity:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/daves-attempt-at-a-null-test.403488/post-7460696
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/daves-attempt-at-a-null-test.403488/post-7461484
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/daves-attempt-at-a-null-test.403488/post-7460604
So my question is this: Do people ever feel bad about ruining the reputation of honest people reporting real experiences? From what I have seen, nobody ever apologizes for the hurt they wrongfully inflict on other people. In fact, seems like most accusers will go to any lengths to make themselves look like angels, unable to admit even to themselves they the harm their self-righteousness has caused to innocent people.
And BTW, I still don't see any justification for the use of sarcasm if you think you know better, or if you think there is a valid concern that needs to be expressed. Trying to make someone telling well established truth look like a fool is helping to accomplish what? To show that it is an easy way for a true fool to try to counter a correct statement of well established truth is by making truth look like a joke?
Last edited:
These people are telling their personal truth, but their interpretation why something changes it's sound are wrong in many cases.
I have my own drawer full of true, audible experiences, that I keep for my self, because I have no real logical explaination, but only guesses for the "why". Anything you can not repeat instandly, is suspect, a pilar of science.
A cleaner and more stable, harder power supply can change sound quality in a positive way, very audible ane objective, depending on the audio circuit behind it. If you start to give a corrected quantum flow as an explaination for that, you are a charlatan, if you show a cleaner sine wave you are boring but telling the truth.
On that we agree 100%. People often guess wrong as to causation. That tendency is part of human nature, its part of how the brain works. The brain always supplies a causal explanation, and that explanation is usually believed by the brain's owner without any careful examination. This tendency has been well documented by leading Cognitive Psychologists. So get used to it; its going to happen, given that we are all humans. If you can figure out how to deal it without making everyone into Dr. Evil, then you will have accomplished something important.
Last edited:
I have a very strong oppinion on good and bad sound. My ears do not discuss anything, the simply tell me after 15 seconds whether a sound system is good or bad. Listening longer is only to be polite or give a clear expaination what is wrong.
Good live recordings are a perfect mix of many sound sources, so basically synthetic too.
What you think of as a live recording would be a two microphone setup. Which is a very special, more experimental thing. Just like Kunstkopfstereophonie. I have no idea what that is in English.
A studio recording is in most cases better to judge a sound system, even if it might be a "collage" as you call it. Such are much better to display single events without any random noise, which is one point a good reproduction system has to deliver.
If you got a mashed up live recording, even the best speaker amp and DAC can't separate the muddy sound.
Good live recordings often challenge the dynamic ability of a system. For example may a horn loaded, basically down sized PA speaker system, reproduce live music just as intended and leave average listeners flabbergasted when the drum hit's the cheast.
I know the effect first hand, as I have such a home PA for many years now, as a second system. My daughter can play her electric guitar over it and half the village has to listen.
Such a high power HIFI system is nice to ground your perception while you work on "usual" speaker systems. If your new developed speaker goes into some kind of overload situation, with program material the PA enthusiastically plays, I know I have to change something.
If it can, with reduced level, catch the spirit of a tough recording, I know I'm on the right way.
Isn't it time then to make audio "scientific": via simple tests that everyone can carry out for themselves with the same experimental setup and in the same way? Initially, this is not about explanation but about observation. It's about a precise description of the observation: differentiation and verbalization.
I'm going to repeat, and I'll commit myself: this is a beginner's audio test: if you don't take it, you don't need to deal with complex audio issues:
I'm going to repeat, and I'll commit myself: this is a beginner's audio test: if you don't take it, you don't need to deal with complex audio issues:
It's interesting that you ask if he lied or heard something real. Followed by "I think" comments. You're choice of language is not building confidence here and that's not sarcasm.
But there is a lot of science to systems now. What is your best simple test to describe every thing about sound of a system ?
I mean, we want to come to a systematization of tests, for example. And also to a systematic derivation and interpretation of the observations. Simply describing the sound of a system without knowing the system, including its complexity, will not be enough. In addition, there is a lack of contrast: we can only perceive contrastively: a test is therefore based on a change in the system, for example by exchanging or omitting parts. And these parts, in turn, must also be analyzed. And so on. A lot of work with such a complex issue as "audio", but solvable, as we start to systematize, to structure;-)
Another tip: Is an A/B test based on switching while listening suitable for audio?
NO!
Because the human ear, the human being in general, is a swinging system that swings in and also swings out after stimulation. If I do not allow this system to swing out, to come down, to rest, it will only be able to perceive gross differences. Give > 10 seconds to rest.
Here's the theory first - that saves us a lot of discussion about interpretations and explanations at the beginning of systematization of tests, methods, results... audio;-)
NO!
Because the human ear, the human being in general, is a swinging system that swings in and also swings out after stimulation. If I do not allow this system to swing out, to come down, to rest, it will only be able to perceive gross differences. Give > 10 seconds to rest.
Here's the theory first - that saves us a lot of discussion about interpretations and explanations at the beginning of systematization of tests, methods, results... audio;-)