I'm not sure what your reading of my post was but it is completely wrong based on your reply - no ire or anger here or even excitement here - don't know where you are picking that up from?
It seems that you guys wanted to go back to the normal program, that's all?
It is possible for people to be sincere, well meaning, and knowledgeable, while still making a living.
For example, have you ever been in a good hardware store? Can you show that Mallinson is deceptive?
Do you really think someone could afford to do that kind of work without being paid?
Last edited:
Don't worry. You are doing fine at describing your thoughts, and experiences/perceptions.
Often people change the subject when they feel done with a line of thinking.
I am still following and reading all contributions.
Speaking of contributions.... more need to add a star to their names/avatar.... contribute more than hot air. [IMO]
-RNM
Last edited:
That's what I hoped - thanks for the support
Indeed, I thought that too but didn't say it as it seems more fodder to attack the person rather than the message - none of the points I have raised have been addressed, I note.
I'm amazed at some of the statements from people who proclaimed multitone testing as a means of separating the sheep form goats & then claim I'm suffering from delusional dogma & don't understand the fundamentals in suggesting that more music-like test signals are what we should be striving for!!
I'm amazed that Mallinson & Forman show in their paper pretty much exactly that & give the reasoning but are simply dismissed as salesmen
Where has objectivity gone to?
Last edited:
Wrong answer, sorry. I know you could have done much better though, sometimes I see the ability in you. If you could just wait until the initial emotional responses pass, given it some time and thought about more... Why don't you consider giving it a try? Just wait until the urge to respond immediately passes, wait until the dislike passes. You and everyone else will likely think the quality of your responses has improved. All the more so if you can keep it brief, linearly organized, and to the point. </hopefully friendly lecture>
Its a 6+ dimensional subject but 1D or even 2D thinking doesn't seem to work well. I read several things here and else where that are contradictory but both true. We don't have a good way to verbally/write about it to do the subject justice. Maybe complex multi-dimensional visual displays would do better in transferring what is going on… but where are they?
I have a hard time visualizing a moving 6 axis machine. But seeing one in action and you know. Our perceptions are a lot more complex. But seeing and hearing and you know. A six axis milling machine can be described by math and built. Math to describe the multi-multi- dimensional processing we use … ?? We have to break it down into small bite size pieces and then try to connect them together.... hasn't worked well so far. We can do competitive chess games now that use limited human thinking ability on super computers.
We perceive what we perceive and I use consensus to know if it is of perceptual importance or not. The broader the range of conditions, the more accurate the consensus.... when there is one.
Keeping it simple so as to not hurt my brain too much.
THx-RNMarsh
I have a hard time visualizing a moving 6 axis machine. But seeing one in action and you know. Our perceptions are a lot more complex. But seeing and hearing and you know. A six axis milling machine can be described by math and built. Math to describe the multi-multi- dimensional processing we use … ?? We have to break it down into small bite size pieces and then try to connect them together.... hasn't worked well so far. We can do competitive chess games now that use limited human thinking ability on super computers.
We perceive what we perceive and I use consensus to know if it is of perceptual importance or not. The broader the range of conditions, the more accurate the consensus.... when there is one.
Keeping it simple so as to not hurt my brain too much.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I have thought complex and multi-tone testing should be the norm for a long time. But even when people who have the test equipment designed to do at least a multi-tone, don't use it...Whats that about?
Some are more interested in debating than anything else. Don't worry we are evaluating all comments objectively as possible.
I have had to learn to ignore and press on with my part to the contributions and Q&A and not do the knee jerk emotional reply to means of control and dismissive comments.
Just carry on.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I'm not accusing him of being deceptive. Engineering overkill and marketing can work hand in hand. I'm sure they have their own theories. There are a large number of people on this very forum that don't like the sound of the ESS DACs though. How can both be true?
Do you believe that AKM dacs really produce velvet sound and all their marketing copy about the color of their digital filters? Or is it a game of numbers where after ESS released the Sabre you see AKM and Cirrus responding by releasing converters with ever increasing DNR.
They saw there would be demand for such a product and they took advantage, good for them.
Last edited:
that's easy. LOL How ESS dacs sound is extremely implementation dependent. There are lots of rather compromised implementations out there. That and the ESS parts keep getting better too. However, Benchmark DAC-3 is a very fine ESS based unit that sounds great and measures exceptionally well. Chances are good that most people who say they don't like the ESS sound have not heard DAC-3, and don't have any idea how good a really well engineered implementation can sound.
On the other hand there are people building or putting together ESS dacs on this very forum who don't have any idea of how to make one sound it's best. This is actually I think the first time I have said anything about it, and I think it would probably be best to stop here and leave it at that.
Last edited:
So we're to believe they have discovered the key to a better sounding modulator in their expensive DAC IC, prototyped it with FPGAs, made ICs, but lack the ability to implement a reference analog design that sounds good?
Remember, the OPPO is based on their reference design. Mid-fi at best I believe people in this thread have remarked.
Maybe we should tell ESS how to implement it correctly so they can update their app notes.
There is a clique here that will tell you all sigma delta converters are unsuitable for one reason or another. I think a popular one is noise modulation.
Remember, the OPPO is based on their reference design. Mid-fi at best I believe people in this thread have remarked.
Maybe we should tell ESS how to implement it correctly so they can update their app notes.
There is a clique here that will tell you all sigma delta converters are unsuitable for one reason or another. I think a popular one is noise modulation.
Last edited:
So they are going to demo it to important customers in Asia using a substandard reference design? They demoed it several times and if I recall correctly, the reference design is a conventional op-amp I/V converter into MFB filter, using AD797s. That implementation gets criticized here frequently.
The point is that I find it ironic people are cherry picking this ESS paper to bolster their argument while they also pan the same product in other threads here.
It looks like there is blame to go around everywhere, and I would agree it starts with ESS. They don't do a good job of applications support or even know how to make their own dacs sound their best.
Then there are DIYer's who think they want tubes and all kinds of options that don't actually make SQ better for a SOA dac. How about a nice NOS dac if tube sound is wanted?
There are vendors that produce stuff customers ask for but that have wires running all over the place between spread out boards that might better share one ground plane and set of power planes. Nice to get rid of the ground loops too.
Unfortunately, the situation with ESS dacs is that designers are mostly on their own, and that includes needing to do a lot of research and measurements to come up with a good design. That means having a certain amount of expensive test equipment. It matters what jitter is at 1Hz or 10Hz, I don't care if it still looks pretty good at 100Hz. It's like 1/f noise, it can get worse fast as frequency goes down.
I think Benchmark is the only company that says it offloads interpolation filtering, but all one gets from ESS is the hint that you can do it.
What about upsampling, trade-offs between high sample rate capability and sound sound quality at low sample rates? What is the trade off if any? What are the options? Nobody seems to know anything except ESS and Benchmark. ESS isn't saying much, and Benchmark seems to have done a lot of their own discovery in their own lab.
Still, DIYer's are not paying attention to these things, not asking all the right questions, and not doing their own testing to find out what they need to know.
In other words, its rather a mess. But, the fact remains that ESS dac sound is very implementation dependent, there are a lot of compromised implementations, and a carefully engineered one can have superb sound quality.
Last edited:
No answer to my question then?
If you have explanations for their apparent errors/oversights in their proposed analog output stages do chip in with them on this thread : ES9038Q2M Board
@Mark - Ayre do their own thing with the filters too I believe.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.