Putting these side by side I'm really not sure what to conclude. But I do like Mark, despite us being on opposite sides of the debate on occasions, so I am biased towards his findings.
Hi Andrea,
Not once have I questioned the reliability of your clock.
What I have called into question is the degree of perfection you say is required, when I know the requirements are far less stringent. You have not even defined this, and the onus is on you to prove what is required and to show you have solved the problem in a responsible and well engineered. By well engineered, I mean that the product does what it needs to do without a great deal of waste.
I am clear on this.
Hi clsidxxl,
That is expected, since the clock you had was probably poorly designed and had a problem. I don't know what you had, but if you heard a difference then it wasn't working well. By design or fault doesn't matter, you solved the problem and that is good.
The "pollution" in this thread is a technical discussion and is a valid point. The real pollution would be comments directed at people in a non-professional manner. Wouldn't you agree?
jmmbarco, kinsei and minionas,
If you are fanboys I can understand your viewpoint. There are technical points that are being discussed and you can leave if you feel threatened. You probably don't understand the material in this case and it is just as well you ignore the thread.
minionas, you are actually out of line when you commented
Your comments are not helpful and actually just considered noise. If you can't think of something intelligent to say on the subject, you are better off reading and not posting. It would seem like your emotions are guiding your fingers. That does not help Andrea either. This is actually pointed at everyone who posts in a similar manner, not just you. Your post just made you an easy example.
There are no sides to this discussion really. Just questions that should be answered. So far, some have been, some not. For one, I am not questioning the quality of Andrea's work. He is not under attack, but he is being asked to justify his claims and choices - nicely.
-Chris
Not once have I questioned the reliability of your clock.
What I have called into question is the degree of perfection you say is required, when I know the requirements are far less stringent. You have not even defined this, and the onus is on you to prove what is required and to show you have solved the problem in a responsible and well engineered. By well engineered, I mean that the product does what it needs to do without a great deal of waste.
I am clear on this.
Hi clsidxxl,
That is expected, since the clock you had was probably poorly designed and had a problem. I don't know what you had, but if you heard a difference then it wasn't working well. By design or fault doesn't matter, you solved the problem and that is good.
The "pollution" in this thread is a technical discussion and is a valid point. The real pollution would be comments directed at people in a non-professional manner. Wouldn't you agree?
jmmbarco, kinsei and minionas,
If you are fanboys I can understand your viewpoint. There are technical points that are being discussed and you can leave if you feel threatened. You probably don't understand the material in this case and it is just as well you ignore the thread.
minionas, you are actually out of line when you commented
You made mass assumptions without knowing anyone. Not the mark of a thinking person. For example, my life has been devoted to music and making it better and more enjoyable to many who pay me for my successful work. I know some of the other people you are referring to and know they also enjoy music.
Your comments are not helpful and actually just considered noise. If you can't think of something intelligent to say on the subject, you are better off reading and not posting. It would seem like your emotions are guiding your fingers. That does not help Andrea either. This is actually pointed at everyone who posts in a similar manner, not just you. Your post just made you an easy example.
There are no sides to this discussion really. Just questions that should be answered. So far, some have been, some not. For one, I am not questioning the quality of Andrea's work. He is not under attack, but he is being asked to justify his claims and choices - nicely.
-Chris
I'm sorry to say your short memory lacks
Sound Quality Vs. Measurements
Please, read carefully next time.
He did ask me to measure his oscillators because he would compare my measurement with his measurement.
If you don't trust my measurements and neither the measurement from Joseph K, I'm sorry but I can't help you.
Now I have in my hands my own oscillators only and I have no intention to ship them to anyone.
But if you are so obsessed you can just ask one of the members who have got the oscillators to send them to you and then you have to rent a suitable tool to make the measurement.
Just for info, I cannot send my oscillators to the independent "nazi beasts" at ASR, the AP tool does not measure the phase noise.
And maybe the time base of the AP is worse than the DUT.
About Ian Canada or Soekris I have merely measured their devices and I have posted the resulting plots.
I have nothing to argue if someone wants measure our devices, exactly the contrary.
So where is the problem?
Last edited:
Hi Andrea,
Whenever you embark on an improvement to a system, you start by figuring out what the minimum requirements are and by what ratio you wish to exceed this. Have you surveyed the encoding equipment yet? If not, you are in the dark completely without requirements for your project. You absolutely cannot make any claim to system improvement without first characterizing existing equipment and program material. In other words, what is the maximum quality of the music file to begin with?
So. What are the normal industry specifications? What are the best units capable of? What is the actual point where the jitter in the source material becomes dominant? These are all things you should be able to read off. If not, you really ought to figure out what those figures are.
-Chris
Easily checked, and you should before making that comment. The AP oscillator is more than good enough to best anything you can actually hear. It is not intended to measure the frequency of your oscillator, but it will work on the audio results you claim is your final objective. That has so far been undefined.
Whenever you embark on an improvement to a system, you start by figuring out what the minimum requirements are and by what ratio you wish to exceed this. Have you surveyed the encoding equipment yet? If not, you are in the dark completely without requirements for your project. You absolutely cannot make any claim to system improvement without first characterizing existing equipment and program material. In other words, what is the maximum quality of the music file to begin with?
So. What are the normal industry specifications? What are the best units capable of? What is the actual point where the jitter in the source material becomes dominant? These are all things you should be able to read off. If not, you really ought to figure out what those figures are.
-Chris
Hi Chris,
let me quote myself.
The analogy is almost perfect.
Italian cuisine is world’s most popular | YouGov
https://daydaynews.cc/en/international/331805.html
We could perhaps measure the same calories, the same proteins, the same carbohydrates in one dish of English cuisine and in another of Italian cuisine.
So can we say that the two dishes will both be equally enjoyable for those who taste them?
No, the result of the study is "British cuisine is regarded as unpalatable across mainland Europe."
In the same way we can measure two DAC and get the same results, or we can measure two amps with different results.
So we can say that the two DACs will give us the same listening sensation and the amplifier which measures better will be more pleasant to listen to?
Again no, the same about the food.
We are unable to measure the senses such as taste and hearing, we have not yet understood how our brain elaborates the information catched from our transducers.
Any measurement we can make is abstract and an end in itself since we are unable to relate it to what we actually perceive.
That's the reason why I can find difference in DACs with the same measurement and I can find more pleasant the amp which measures worse.
In the end, I don't pretend to teach you what music is and how to listen to it, but neither can you with me.
And I don't even pretend to explain how the brain processes the information it receives from the senses.
So I'm sorry but I have no way to explain what I perceive, but I'ma haapy to live with my perceiving.
Andrea
What a boring direction this thread has taken, what a shame. I saw this and quickly realised it would be a waste of time to read anymore of the stories and essays that have been written over the past few days. Gerhard, I feel sorry for the limited world view you must have, maybe time to slow down on this hobby and travel the world.
Where is the moderation on DIYaudio? Admittedly Andrea is.. passionate and a tad combative but this dying hobby needs as many people attempting to push the envelope. Often some of the smartest and brightest people have those traits. I'm hoping you all don't stop him from releasing new products or at least start contributing new ideas and products yourself.
On other news, I have had a good chance to play with the 5/6/22/24/25 and 26mhz SC cut crystals on the Differential and Driscoll boards.
I am fortunate enough to have some retail equivalents to compare too. I managed to get my hands on a ex-demo DCS Vivaldi DAC and clock earlier this year, which is my current baseline. I've also borrowed a Denafrips Termy plus from a friend over the last two months. Although I do spend more time playing or listening to my DIY dac.
I am unsure if those clock implementations match say MarkW's AK4499 implementation. As I'm sure he has pushed the boundaries as far as possible and I've not heard an AK4499 DAC. However, I have found that Andrea's clocks with a doubler have bought the Termy v.close to the DCS - enough that I'm considering to sell it (it wasn't before...). I would imagine it would be far better, if I had enough doublers to use my 5/6mhz clocks with it. They're waiting for Andrea's DAC lite.
I think for the price I paid, this is amazing. Feel free to PM me if anyone is interested.
Andrea - can I suggest you move your thread to maybe another forum where there is less of a bullying culture. I will happily sign up, this has been one of my best purchases in hifi (bar speakers and room treatment)
Hi Chis,
this was claimed "Soekris sent his DACs for evaluation to the independent "nazi beasts" at ASR and got a very good review and feedback".
Do you think I can send our oscillators to ASR to be measured?
And how would they measure them?
And what else should I send them, the digital front end and the DAC we are still developing?
I think I have already answered to the other question in the previous post.
Andrea
this was claimed "Soekris sent his DACs for evaluation to the independent "nazi beasts" at ASR and got a very good review and feedback".
Do you think I can send our oscillators to ASR to be measured?
And how would they measure them?
And what else should I send them, the digital front end and the DAC we are still developing?
I think I have already answered to the other question in the previous post.
Andrea
Re-read what Gerhard wrote in context. Several times. You may have come to the wrong conclusion.
Hi Andrea,
Let's talk about electronics and keep us on point.
Right now you are talking about people reporting between units that had clock problems that are fixed, and comparisons they cannot possibly hear. Do ... the ... math.
By getting mired in what people think they hear you are completely muddying the waters. Now you are in the advertising game selling an image and not the truth.
-Define the problem, that is #1. Tell us what you found - keeps you honest.
-Find out what the state of the art is currently in the recording end and tell us.
-Find out what the typical and so called good performance is.
-Compare your product to what is out there.
These are pretty much all measurable and do not involve the opinions of people that can be "convinced" an improvement has taken place. You should have these numbers already.
So lay off the entire "listening test" type of drivel. You are making a claim that can be proved or disproved without the input of human listeners.
Your listening tests involved equipment with unknown (not measured) performance before changes were made, and not after even. All you have is "Gee, yes that sounds better". In every case it may, but why is the question you needed to answer.
When I embark on improving a piece of equipment, I make "as found" measurements and listen to it. Then I do the work, measurements may be involved to guide me. Then at the end, I perform another set of measurements that show clearly what was improved. So if you are improving a person's equipment, what did you improve (for real - measured) and does that explain the differences they are hearing?
I am not asking for anything unusual here. I am pointing out that you need to know what the metrics are that you have to improve upon, and where further improvement is of no further use to the customer or equipment. If you go further - great! But be prepared to define those points to your customer and other interested parties.
If you are going to hide behind nothing more than listening parties, your claims do not hold water and you were irresponsible with the project by not defining the goals. "building the best oscillator" is not a goal a bank would ever grant you a loan for in a business plan, or a project within a company. In fact, you are doing yourself a disservice by operating in the dark. Know your goals. Know how to measure them. If you don't, I don't know what you are doing. Just hacking around I guess.
Don't crawl under a rock to hide. Stand in the light and show us what you are doing as far as what the current state of equipment is, and what is has to be, followed by what you have achieved. I believe you made a very good oscillator. Prove it makes a difference.
-Chris
Let's talk about electronics and keep us on point.
Right now you are talking about people reporting between units that had clock problems that are fixed, and comparisons they cannot possibly hear. Do ... the ... math.
By getting mired in what people think they hear you are completely muddying the waters. Now you are in the advertising game selling an image and not the truth.
-Define the problem, that is #1. Tell us what you found - keeps you honest.
-Find out what the state of the art is currently in the recording end and tell us.
-Find out what the typical and so called good performance is.
-Compare your product to what is out there.
These are pretty much all measurable and do not involve the opinions of people that can be "convinced" an improvement has taken place. You should have these numbers already.
So lay off the entire "listening test" type of drivel. You are making a claim that can be proved or disproved without the input of human listeners.
Your listening tests involved equipment with unknown (not measured) performance before changes were made, and not after even. All you have is "Gee, yes that sounds better". In every case it may, but why is the question you needed to answer.
When I embark on improving a piece of equipment, I make "as found" measurements and listen to it. Then I do the work, measurements may be involved to guide me. Then at the end, I perform another set of measurements that show clearly what was improved. So if you are improving a person's equipment, what did you improve (for real - measured) and does that explain the differences they are hearing?
I am not asking for anything unusual here. I am pointing out that you need to know what the metrics are that you have to improve upon, and where further improvement is of no further use to the customer or equipment. If you go further - great! But be prepared to define those points to your customer and other interested parties.
If you are going to hide behind nothing more than listening parties, your claims do not hold water and you were irresponsible with the project by not defining the goals. "building the best oscillator" is not a goal a bank would ever grant you a loan for in a business plan, or a project within a company. In fact, you are doing yourself a disservice by operating in the dark. Know your goals. Know how to measure them. If you don't, I don't know what you are doing. Just hacking around I guess.
Don't crawl under a rock to hide. Stand in the light and show us what you are doing as far as what the current state of equipment is, and what is has to be, followed by what you have achieved. I believe you made a very good oscillator. Prove it makes a difference.
-Chris
Perhaps. I have a lot of time for Gerhard. A great contributor and I built his 2-way using the SB satori drivers and enjoyed it very much.
Wasn't meant to be condescending, just advice.
Anyway, I will go back to reading the tube forums. Good luck Andrea.
Except that the electronics you are referring to are in sound reproducing industry. The performance judging criteria for those devices are on the accuracy of reproduction. Whether it's English cuisine or Italian cuisine, if reproducing such cuisine is not tastefully accurate to high level, then it's not quality work.
Andrea, your analogy to enjoyment of food or wine vs measurement of chemical composition is spot on.
@sebbyp thank you for this post. I was hoping someone would be in a position to compare a system with DRIXO vs a first class commercial DAC. I bet that with a couple of months burn in the 5/6 version might be even closer. Don't let the current bullies drive you out of town. Just ignore. Soon they'll seek fresh meat in a different thread.
There are many here who wish you well here Andrea and can see through all this negativity and insecurity from those who just plain envy the plaudits you have won as a result of your work.
Hope you do stop replying to these poor souls who have nothing better to be doing, they will go away when we stop addressing them and find some other echo chamber.
Looking forward to more from you in the near future.
Hope you do stop replying to these poor souls who have nothing better to be doing, they will go away when we stop addressing them and find some other echo chamber.
Looking forward to more from you in the near future.
Spot on if he was describing food production as in chef cooking. Spot on if he was describing music production as in musician performing. But he wasn't. This thread and the device he mentioned (DACs) on that post are for sound reproduction as in recreating. Big difference.
Hi Chris,
sorry but I have difficult to understand what you are asking.
Maybe I was not enough clear:
- we are not audio professionals
- we have no customers
- we have no intention to create a new audio company
- we are designing audio devices for ourselves
- we share our designs on a diy forum
- we are not Santa Claus
- IT pays the bill
- we do this as a hobby
- until now we only have designed the oscillators to be used in our audio system
- we are designing the entire audio chain
- now we are working on the digital front end and on the discrete DAC (lite version to make them affordable to the audio community)
- digital front end and DAC are complex projects which take long time (we have developed the hardware, the firmware for the micro and the FPGA, I will develop the Windows application to manage the front end soon)
- our devices are a bargain compared to the SOTA (but we are not Santa Claus) performance
- we have already designed the battery supply system to feed the digital chain
- we are planning to test LTO batteries too for the analog section of the DAC
- we have already measured the phase noise and the jitter of the FIFO buffer (plots have been published)
- we will measure the DAC as soon as it's ready
The only parts we have designed for our top system are the oscillators and the battery power supply.
We have measured the oscillators in the only possible way, using a phase noise measurement system.
We have not measured the battery power supply since we don't know what we could measure.
The other designs we have released (linear regulators, frequency doublers, sine to square converters, clock switcher and so on) have been developed on request from the members of this forum.
The FIFO and the DAC lite we are testing have been developed for the audio community since the same devices we are developing for ourselves are not so affordable.
I think we have made our small contribution to the audio community.
So, in our opinion, until now we have measured the completed devices in the right way.
If you disagree, please let me know how we could measure the oscillators and the digital front end (the FIFO Lite).
We have no other way to measure them than the one we have already followed.
Andrea
sorry but I have difficult to understand what you are asking.
Maybe I was not enough clear:
- we are not audio professionals
- we have no customers
- we have no intention to create a new audio company
- we are designing audio devices for ourselves
- we share our designs on a diy forum
- we are not Santa Claus
- IT pays the bill
- we do this as a hobby
- until now we only have designed the oscillators to be used in our audio system
- we are designing the entire audio chain
- now we are working on the digital front end and on the discrete DAC (lite version to make them affordable to the audio community)
- digital front end and DAC are complex projects which take long time (we have developed the hardware, the firmware for the micro and the FPGA, I will develop the Windows application to manage the front end soon)
- our devices are a bargain compared to the SOTA (but we are not Santa Claus) performance
- we have already designed the battery supply system to feed the digital chain
- we are planning to test LTO batteries too for the analog section of the DAC
- we have already measured the phase noise and the jitter of the FIFO buffer (plots have been published)
- we will measure the DAC as soon as it's ready
The only parts we have designed for our top system are the oscillators and the battery power supply.
We have measured the oscillators in the only possible way, using a phase noise measurement system.
We have not measured the battery power supply since we don't know what we could measure.
The other designs we have released (linear regulators, frequency doublers, sine to square converters, clock switcher and so on) have been developed on request from the members of this forum.
The FIFO and the DAC lite we are testing have been developed for the audio community since the same devices we are developing for ourselves are not so affordable.
I think we have made our small contribution to the audio community.
So, in our opinion, until now we have measured the completed devices in the right way.
If you disagree, please let me know how we could measure the oscillators and the digital front end (the FIFO Lite).
We have no other way to measure them than the one we have already followed.
Andrea
I'm not planning to beg, borrow or steal any of your customers toys; otherwise your memory is rather short:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/dig...itter-crystal-oscillator-408.html#post6708128
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/dig...itter-crystal-oscillator-353.html#post6622668
Hi Andrea,
Okay, understood.
I was really hoping you had done those things. It doesn't matter that you are a hobbyist, its just good experimental practice. You simply cannot place your achievement or know how well you really did. You kinda went half way and stopped.
You also have to understand that with formal training, we are taught to proceed in a logical way. We are not trying to give you a hard time. Its just that you have not performed the steps that were assumed you would. Those are basically to define where you are at, a stick in the sand so to speak. Then you need to determine where your minimum goal would be, then a reasonable target goal. Your developmental path then is defined and you can work efficiently to your goal - and exceed it if you want.
One thing is perfectly clear though. You are reproducing a signal without modifying it in any way. Some systems do modify the signal through short comings, imperfections. You need to recreate what was encoded perfectly. That is your stated goal with a perfect clock. You are not creating anything, you are reproducing. You are not cooking or anything else, there is no taste involved at all. If you modify that signal in any way, you have failed completely - by definition as has been pointed out.
I hoped for better for you - really.
-Chris
Okay, understood.
I was really hoping you had done those things. It doesn't matter that you are a hobbyist, its just good experimental practice. You simply cannot place your achievement or know how well you really did. You kinda went half way and stopped.
You also have to understand that with formal training, we are taught to proceed in a logical way. We are not trying to give you a hard time. Its just that you have not performed the steps that were assumed you would. Those are basically to define where you are at, a stick in the sand so to speak. Then you need to determine where your minimum goal would be, then a reasonable target goal. Your developmental path then is defined and you can work efficiently to your goal - and exceed it if you want.
One thing is perfectly clear though. You are reproducing a signal without modifying it in any way. Some systems do modify the signal through short comings, imperfections. You need to recreate what was encoded perfectly. That is your stated goal with a perfect clock. You are not creating anything, you are reproducing. You are not cooking or anything else, there is no taste involved at all. If you modify that signal in any way, you have failed completely - by definition as has been pointed out.
I hoped for better for you - really.
-Chris
.- Status
- Not open for further replies.