That's fundamentally what I am saying, except the ground loop breaker sits between PSU ground and chassis ground.
And in that scenario, you just have to be double-careful that nowhere in your chain connects that XLR ground to signal ground, because that would defeat the breaker.
You clearly can’t read as I have mentioned earlier that there is a ground loop breaker connecting dam1021 gnd to chassis gnd. I still consider that somewhat floating though. I don’t think you have been of any help to me. I’m mostly just waiting for Soren to reply since this is his design and he knows best what could and could not have happened.
Can you please point that out to me? I went back and searched every page for the words 'ground' and 'loop' and didn't see it anywhere. You only said the ground was floating.
Well, that isn't floating. It's tied to ground through a ground loop breaker. You need to be more precise in your posts.
Best of luck with your future endeavours then. With your sterling attitude, I'm sure Soren will be right along and fix you up lickety-split.
Here you go. I don't blame you since I posted a lot. But that also means you need to be very careful making these claims without sufficient evidence.
Ah, in an edit, that's why I missed it.
Please be informed that your DAC is not floating, it is grounded. That means you need to be more precise in your descriptions and terminology.
Please be informed that your DAC is not floating, it is grounded. That means you need to be more precise in your descriptions and terminology.
I also spent a few days with the 1.23. Definitely not my taste. Back to 1.19 and the dac is enjoyable again.
If he claims to hear a difference between the two firmware versions, recorded into actual files, he should try to pass an ABX test to make sure he's not imagining things, no? That would be major, if he passes it.
Note that it's entirely possible for there to be an audible difference in reality, but after recording and all the conversions back to analog, the difference becomes obscured somehow.
Going back to the recordings I made, I definitely prefer the version with the clock making no adjustments at all (logged into Tera Term). And yes, there is a sharpness to the high end in the 1.23 version not present in the other one (or the clock not adjusting).
Since my measurements also didn't show a difference in the magnitude of drift, I've got to ask @soekris again:
Soeren, when exactly does 1.23 change the clocking speed? When the the delta between the incoming clock and the DAM1021's clock exceeds 1/16 Hz? Or when the FIFO-buffer is in danger of over-/underrunning? Or something else?
Also, could you please give use the option to tweak a few of these parameters ourselves.
1.23 is playing nice here. Better dynamics and better bass definition. No sharpness what so ever.
Funny how perception is subjective.
Funny how perception is subjective.
No, I'm not going to start using time explaining everything in details, and definite not open up to tweeking any of it...
Changing the clock more often, as in 1.23, is to me a worse situation than in the previous FW. Why? Because a clock adjustment is a brutal exercise if you look in detail what will go on. Just push this idea to the limit; the clock will have a constant flow of change frequency orders - it would be going on back-to-back - this would not be a good clock. No, the best situation for this clock is to leave it alone really but the solution with smaller but more often adjustments cant be an improvement as I see it. But I will try it and "see".
//
//
Soeren, before you stated that the new clocking scheme only updates when necessary. It now looks like the clock is still updated frequently and meanders broadly around the target frequency. It doesn't look like an improvement on the previous version. Are there hardware limitations that make a closer approximation of the incoming clock frequency impossible?
Still trying to get multichannel to synch together properly? I got an Octoresearch 8 channel dac. Problem solved.
Seems you are having issues with the sound one way or another...good luck...
Well, compared to what is the standard today I am probably complaining on a high level (as we say in Germany). To my ears the latest high modulation delta sigma converters actually sound worse than some of the mid 90s offerings. But I have the luxury of being able to have analog sources as a direct reference in the studio.
It's unfortunate that the DAM1021 rests below its potential with the re-clocking scheme. Because with that out of the way (entering Tera Term) it sounds great.
I've made more comparisons now listening directly to 1.23 vs the re-clocking stopped via Tera Term and the same with 1.21.
Re-clocking in both revisions compromise the sound, but in different ways:
1.21 blunts the dynamics a little and the high end sounds a little dirtied/frayed. Some clarity is quite obviously lost.
It's not that subtle really and gets annoying fast. Listen to material with a lot of high end energy (like the original 80s digital master of Steve Winwood's "Higher Love" for example) and you get the urge to skip to the next song.
1.23 gives the impression of a presence boost, a sharpness in the lower high end and a slight hole in the low mids and bass. Again, this emphasises certain elements like vocal sibiliance or EQed acoustic guitar in an annoying manner.
Check it out for yourself, I wish the differences were more subtle.
Last edited:
That has long been the issue. I wouldn't hold my breath expecting it to be resolved.
Soeren, would it be possible to program the DAM1021 so that it only makes a change to the clocking if the buffer is close to overflowing or underrunning? This would help to keep course corrections to a minimum. It is obvious from my tests that these clock changes are very audible.
So far, listening to the DAM1021 logged into Tera Term I have yet to actually notice an audible overflow/underrun.
So far, listening to the DAM1021 logged into Tera Term I have yet to actually notice an audible overflow/underrun.