Some people want their kit to make sounds that them happy, some want it to measure well. Some want a dollop of both, neither is more correct than the other.
You are misunderstanding what's been posted. Markw4 posted unsubstantiated audibility claims on this forum and I challenged him. I didn't challenge his own entertainment via his audio gear at his own place.
You need to get a better grip on what's going on before calling members clowns because if you don't, that would be clownish.
That would be the person's emotional issue, not audio. Number of factors can cause that and one of them is FUD spread by audio electronics sellers.
Is that a question? There's a missing '?'.
There's no such thing as a 'typical DAC' - point to one in particular.
I fully understand what has been posted. I simply place the same value on your tests as I would on his claims of audibility in that they are of limited use.
I've always thought DBT to be one of the dafter test methods when applied to audio. What use to me are conclusions drawn from a snapshot ?
I suppose that is the only perspective with which you are capable viewing the issue.
Balanced Out with ES9038
Regarding Balanced out XLR output,
what do you think about this offer ACCALIA ES9038PRO finished board Input: coaxial, optical,USB Output: RCA ,XLR-in Digital-to-Analog Converter from Consumer Electronics on AliExpress
Regarding Balanced out XLR output,
what do you think about this offer ACCALIA ES9038PRO finished board Input: coaxial, optical,USB Output: RCA ,XLR-in Digital-to-Analog Converter from Consumer Electronics on AliExpress
I know of people who have modded those boards to make them sound better. Lots of work. Almost everything has to be changed out for best results.
Also, the stereo separation is not very good since AVCC_L and AVCC_R are tied together down inside the mulitilayer board. Probably not practical to fix that.
If you have already have a dac you like and balanced outputs are needed, you could build or buy an opamp balancing circuit for it. Or, transformers can be used to do it.
Last edited:
I realized that opamps In first stage In link I posted are single and not double like true balanced require etc using four signal Iouts from es9038 per channel
It Is like this even at dual es9038pro pcbs
It Is like this even at dual es9038pro pcbs
Last edited:
Samoloko,
Not sure what you are getting at.
It is possible to tie all ES9028PRO outputs together in groups of four, then run them through two single I/V opamps.
IIRC, ES9038PRO has too much output current for that method without using buffered opamps. If so, and a board uses only two unbuffered I/V opamps then it should be that not all the dac outputs are used.
Last edited:
Mark,
true balanced for me Is using four outputs per channel which runs through opamp - sum I+ and I- per phase
true balanced for me Is using four outputs per channel which runs through opamp - sum I+ and I- per phase
Trolling again. 🙄
What you posted (post #18 & #20) have no relevance to what went on from post #11 to #13.
You are free to think anyway you want. If you joined audio forum last month, I would have posted some helpful links for you to study but realizing that you've been here since 2001, something tells me that I shouldn't waste my time posting those.
That can be done with two I/V opamps per channel, one per phase. However, there is not enough filtering of HF junk that way unless you do something to filter it more.
One thing a differential summing stage (after the I/V opamps) does is provide more filtering of out-of-band noise. For that reason, some have argued that if balanced outputs are wanted then a rebalancing circuit should be used after the differential summing stage output. Of course, doing that runs the audio through a lot of opamps which may have its own downside.
We now know that DC removal can also be done in the I/V stage if Vref is adjusted down a little to bring the I/V output offset down to 0v.
And therein lies the problem. You cannot see the relevance because cannot see beyond the numbers.
Not suspicious at all EH.
I'm interested in your opinion and where it is being formed from? Are you
just trolling here or are you genuinely putting forward views based on
experience? If they are based on experience, what is that experience?
A significant part of my work is in Pro Audio sector and as such some of my
clients are Mastering Engineers. I'm very familiar with the gear and in
particular what conversion they use. Your statement implies that 99% of
Mastering Engineers on the planet have been wasting their money upgrading
DA conversion in the last 15 to 20 years. Most ME's that I know do a
significant amount of DBT when choosing gear such as converters, IME they
don't throw money at something that won't be of any direct sonic benefit.
WRT Stereophile, since the year 2000, there have been hundreds of DAC's
reviewed and measured by Stereophile. The measurements vary from very
good in every realm of operation (Chord Dave) to pretty abysmal in every
realm (tube based , zero oversampling, ladder types) and everything in
between.
The designs would include many different digital filter types, DAC types
(delta sigma, segmented, R2R), jitter rejection approaches, analog OP stages
etc etc.
So a/ I'm not clear on where you draw the line of 'properly functioning' and
b/ I'm not clear on exactly which measurements you feel will render a DAC to
be inaudible.
Please explain.
TCD
You can also use a very slow common mode servo. In fact, in most cases just
a DC offset trim will suffice.
T
You think they do but what you posted (post #18 & #20) have no relevance to what went on from post #11 to #13. Not surprising to see this coming from the one who wrote "I've always thought DBT to be one of the dafter test methods when applied to audio."
I stated I was suspicious. I'm supposed to cares what you (a stranger on internet) think I should be? 🙄
I've already stated "been debunked by level matched double blind listening tests." and you ask where it is being formed from. I have no troll food to give out.