We've all been quite patient with your bizarre nonsense. Accusations of "hidden agenda", and such. If you don't want to participate like an adult, for whatever reason, then don't participate at all. It's that simple. Your choice.
One should bear in mind that sajunky lists his one and only crowning achievement, one he apparently takes most pride in (as being listed in his own biography) as: "Banned on ASR for disrespect". There seems no stopping someone that takes such great pride in being a "enter suitable expletive". Perhaps it calls for a round of applause for him to continue to pursue such lofty goals.
@Hierfi. I am an only pure NOS user who tried to take part of this experiment. It is why my report should be duly respected. I presented my sound analysis in my post #1075. You can challenge it, but so far no one is able to do it. Instead there is a diversion from the main issue indicating a hidden agenda. How you can make assessment on "What do you think makes NOS sound different?" if you don't know how NOS sounds? This is devastating conclusion for everybody.
Last edited:
I have a couple of NOS dacs here, but I never use them because they are so distorted and inaccurate sounding.
Also, had a discrete resistor dac here to listen to for a few days. It was a low end OS type, maybe around $800 new. Hard to listen to compared to what I'm am used to.
Also had a near to bottom of the line Chord, not a whole lot better.
I also have Benchmark DAC-3, which sounds pretty bad in its own way compared to my best dac, a custom AK4499 design with hardware conversion to DSD.
There have also been various other dacs here for auditioning.
The AK4499 is the only one that is close to real sounding, and even it still needs more work.
To me personally, seems like there are a lot of different dac designs in each category, NOS, OS, DS, whatever. They all sound different from each other in various ways.
IME each person only knows the best of each type they have heard so far.
Also, had a discrete resistor dac here to listen to for a few days. It was a low end OS type, maybe around $800 new. Hard to listen to compared to what I'm am used to.
Also had a near to bottom of the line Chord, not a whole lot better.
I also have Benchmark DAC-3, which sounds pretty bad in its own way compared to my best dac, a custom AK4499 design with hardware conversion to DSD.
There have also been various other dacs here for auditioning.
The AK4499 is the only one that is close to real sounding, and even it still needs more work.
To me personally, seems like there are a lot of different dac designs in each category, NOS, OS, DS, whatever. They all sound different from each other in various ways.
IME each person only knows the best of each type they have heard so far.
Last edited:
TNT is attempting to make a recorder with custom decimation chain, with which I help him, so it would certainly be useful for us. Not knowing what is really important and what isn't, we have chosen decimation to 88.2 kHz with a linear-phase apodizing filter chain with no passband ripple, just monotonic roll-off.
Last edited:
I see that you've decided to not participate like an adult. So be it.
As a result, I will be ignoring your posts from here forward, and recommend that others do the same, but that will be individually up to them. Unless, that is, you continue to behave disruptively. In which case, I will request assistance from a moderator with the problem. In any event, I will not permit you to pour cold water on, or otherwise derail the positive experience which the other contributors are hopefully having.
You are ignoring the only post describing NOS properties of the test samples, which is #1075. Your behaviour is a proof that a content do not match your agenda, as otherwise you would use it. Without an agenda you would rather accept report or try to prove what is wrong, as it is a main subject of this thread. It explains a lot. Good luck with next round...
Without objection, here is the remaining suspect-list
Our investigation as to why OS and NOS do not sound the same has apparently succeeded in identifying Category B2 as responsible, without having isolated the exact mechanism which makes it's responsible. With an very important discovered modification of B2 to state, "Lack of an FIR interpolation-filter OR of a high-enough performing FIR interpolation-filter, which frees the DAC from otherwise audible processing 'artifacts'.
B) RECONSTRUCTION/IMAGE-BAND HANDLING
===============================================
2) Lack of an FIR interpolation-filter, freeing the DAC from certain processing 'artifacts' , such as:
a) time-domain signal echoes produced within Equiripple on-chip FIR filters.
b) impulse response ringing (pre or post)
c) half-band filters plainly violating Nyquist
d) are prone to clip on peak sample normalized recordings - the intersample overshoot issue.
Our investigation as to why OS and NOS do not sound the same has apparently succeeded in identifying Category B2 as responsible, without having isolated the exact mechanism which makes it's responsible. With an very important discovered modification of B2 to state, "Lack of an FIR interpolation-filter OR of a high-enough performing FIR interpolation-filter, which frees the DAC from otherwise audible processing 'artifacts'.
B) RECONSTRUCTION/IMAGE-BAND HANDLING
===============================================
2) Lack of an FIR interpolation-filter, freeing the DAC from certain processing 'artifacts' , such as:
a) time-domain signal echoes produced within Equiripple on-chip FIR filters.
b) impulse response ringing (pre or post)
c) half-band filters plainly violating Nyquist
d) are prone to clip on peak sample normalized recordings - the intersample overshoot issue.
Last edited:
Are the conclusions mostly the result of the last test? From my own perspective and possible understanding, what does a square wave at around 2KHz look like for each of the three variances used in the last test?
Gerrit
A result of the PGGB 88.2KHz upsampling experiment, with the caveat that the conclusion necessarily has a low statistical confidence due to participation numbers. Which is not the same thing as indicating the conclusion is therefore incorrect.
As I understand it, the echoes were all more than -50dB down from the signal. So, you wouldn't notice them reverberating via an o-scope. In the frequency domain, they constitute a cyclic variation in frequency-response of typically well under +/- 0.1dB, so you likely wouldn't notice them on a spectrum analyzer displaying some signal either. The question which the experiment attempted to address, was whether such low-level phenomena could make Equiripple type OS interpolation-filters, which exhibit the phenomena, sound characteristically different from NOS.
Last edited:
This all makes sense. My interest is in attempting to correlate digital with analog generated artifacts, as therefore not necessarily digital with digitally variant artifacts. Hence, although the levels wouldn't appear of significance on an o-scope it is believed that I am able to resolve variant differences to the degree of variant low levels as you suggest, albeit dominantly in reverse of being correct as it turns out.
What seems could ultimately limit resolution of digital tests being conducted (as to potentially obscure directions of future advancements) is the influence of dielectric materials found in the analog world. This applies to coupling capacitors, power supply capacitors, feedback capacitors, interconnects, etc. It isn't that they should or can be avoided, rather ought to be given increasing attention as resolution is being advanced. It isn't clear that this isn't already occurring amongst participants.
Gerrit
What seems could ultimately limit resolution of digital tests being conducted (as to potentially obscure directions of future advancements) is the influence of dielectric materials found in the analog world. This applies to coupling capacitors, power supply capacitors, feedback capacitors, interconnects, etc. It isn't that they should or can be avoided, rather ought to be given increasing attention as resolution is being advanced. It isn't clear that this isn't already occurring amongst participants.
Gerrit
I'd like to help in any way I can - once I have it working - DIY always has its surprises
#289: Fixed gain field recorder?
//
Gerrit, there may another explanation for your result.
Do you normally prefer listening to NOS playback, or to OS playback? If you normally prefer OS, then it may make some sense that you might then prefer the sound with the injected echo. Which similates a particular operating characteristic of the great majority of OS DAC interpolation-filters.
Interesting. At the moment I prefer OS playback through an AKM based D/A (seemingly being some form of Delta Sigma design). This is currently in favour of using a TDA1541a based Naim CD3 converted to NOS and one that employs an open loop I/V converter as a variant to a Pedja design. Although the OS is currently preferred it still seems that NOS has more potential, even though having already gone through a host of different I/V designs and their variants.
From your dialog this seems to suggest I prefer injected echo in the test files upon injected echo by the OS DAC. Certainly could be.
From your dialog this seems to suggest I prefer injected echo in the test files upon injected echo by the OS DAC. Certainly could be.
I'd like to help in any way I can - once I have it working - DIY always has its surprises
#289: Fixed gain field recorder?
//
Thx for your offer.
I’m going to read your thread with great interest.
Hans