Thanks, that is much appreciated, they seem to think they are posting this stuff and not realise that the vast number of people reading this is on my side. That I am getting tons of messages and emails - like the saying in the Bible, "there are more for us than against us."
Cheers, Joe
One can't help but notice that many of your posts have not only been personal cheap shots, but have added nothing constructive in any sense. You seem desperate to get noticed, so you've now got your wish.
Last edited:
Says the man taking it on faith that the detailed, prove-it-for-yourself, DIY experiment will demonstrate nothing of interest.
OMG !!! It seems to me now that you are not only a good man promoting non for profit DIY while charging a $1000 per modification, but one who is also a true believer. I made a mistake and for that I apologize - a career in politics would be a wrong thing for you -> you should become a PRIEST !!!
Nick
I haven't yet experimented with the EQ back-to-flat portion.
While you certainly are free to hold that view, you do risk appearing hypocritical when you falsely accuse the other side as being faith based. I haven't read anyone claim that Joe's experiement produces the described subjective effect who had not first demonstrated the physical experiment to themselves. What those in opposition appear to uniformly have in common, however, is their absolute refusal to demonstrate the experiment to themselves. Assuming that one has a suitable DAC available, conducting the experiment could hardly be simpler or less costly, and is easily undone afterward if desired.
Joe has never asked anyone to take any of this on faith. He has done exactly the opposite of that, providing all necessary details for anyone to demonstrate the experiment to themselves. Imploring them to reach their own conclusion, rather than take his word. Doesn't sound like the actions of a would be audio druid. So, I ask you, which side is the one taking their position on faith?
Last edited:
Please remember Bill this is a DIY site and science plays no part in this hobby as long as its DIY....
It does strike me as the archetypal objective spitting the dummy out because facts have been asked for... the constant "I have discovered something, I cant/wont measure it because I can hear it and anyway measurements are... useless/we don't know what to measure/ears are more sensitive is starting to get a bit monotonous... its never ending from thread to thread, forum to forum on any site involving esoteric audiophile beliefs the same... ask for confirmation of any hypothesis and you get jumped on by the subjective crowd... with a vigour that is astounding... and its a shame as it doesn't help the image of audiophiles in the wider world and detracts from what is really important to improve sound reproduction for the masses.
On such a simple mod as this I cannot believe no-one has done any measurements...
It does strike me as the archetypal objective spitting the dummy out because facts have been asked for... the constant "I have discovered something, I cant/wont measure it because I can hear it and anyway measurements are... useless/we don't know what to measure/ears are more sensitive is starting to get a bit monotonous... its never ending from thread to thread, forum to forum on any site involving esoteric audiophile beliefs the same... ask for confirmation of any hypothesis and you get jumped on by the subjective crowd... with a vigour that is astounding... and its a shame as it doesn't help the image of audiophiles in the wider world and detracts from what is really important to improve sound reproduction for the masses.
On such a simple mod as this I cannot believe no-one has done any measurements...
On such a simple mod as this I cannot believe no-one has done any measurements...
Scott did, 20 years ago now....
I'm beginning to smell krill
I realize now that putting a 1uF/6R6 Ohm pole in a circuit and measuring that it is there is supposed to be some kind of validation of something more than just that it is actually there. So SY goes and measures it, as it is there, and we would have had "slam-dunk" declared? I would call that dishonest.
The schematics presented are just that, they even show that in a simple simulation even though doing it by hand is not that difficult. The recommendation then is to add a compensating boost later so there is no net frequency roll-off in the audio band.
You can download the ESS reference design from their site and in fact it is not very different from the #371 circuit. Furthermore it is easy to show that the I to V converter there has fairly poor ultrasonic rejection and this is left to a later stage. Modern converters have not just evolved beyond R2R ladders, The ESS chips have all the DSP, digital filters, etc. on the same silicon die not the case with the chips the NOS folks like to play with. There is good reason to suspect that the finer details of laying out and constructing a particular design will matter a lot more. This includes the proximity of the digital engine to the analog world. It is certainly plausible aggressively removing ultra-sonics directly at the DAC output has an effect it even might compensate for sloppiness elsewhere.
I realize now that putting a 1uF/6R6 Ohm pole in a circuit and measuring that it is there is supposed to be some kind of validation of something more than just that it is actually there. So SY goes and measures it, as it is there, and we would have had "slam-dunk" declared? I would call that dishonest.
The schematics presented are just that, they even show that in a simple simulation even though doing it by hand is not that difficult. The recommendation then is to add a compensating boost later so there is no net frequency roll-off in the audio band.
You can download the ESS reference design from their site and in fact it is not very different from the #371 circuit. Furthermore it is easy to show that the I to V converter there has fairly poor ultrasonic rejection and this is left to a later stage. Modern converters have not just evolved beyond R2R ladders, The ESS chips have all the DSP, digital filters, etc. on the same silicon die not the case with the chips the NOS folks like to play with. There is good reason to suspect that the finer details of laying out and constructing a particular design will matter a lot more. This includes the proximity of the digital engine to the analog world. It is certainly plausible aggressively removing ultra-sonics directly at the DAC output has an effect it even might compensate for sloppiness elsewhere.
Yes, but no listening tests or any claims about audibility. The effects of removal of ultra-sonic energy would probably depend on down stream components and their susceptibility to RFI/EMI.
I found the AD1862 demo boards, there were several I to V experiments that the application engineers were trying (the ones involving $3 op-amps were never popular with any customers). There was one customer that will remain unnamed that came to the plant to negotiate a private brand on an AD840/1 (?) in a big metal can IIRC. I had to tell the CTO that he had some fundamental mis-conceptions but what he was doing was certainly still valid. Sound familiar?
Last edited:
On such a simple mod as this I cannot believe no-one has done any measurements...
You may have a chance to be the first one, helping so the community...
Sounds very familiar. I can almost imagine the advertising copy, with liberal splattering of 'mil-spec' and 'Nasa inspired'.
Layout does have a big effect on DACs as this nice doc illustrates:
http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/slyp167/slyp167.pdf
Also illustrates why true 24 bit is a bit of a dream...
For the DIY designs and cheepo boards fro Ebay where layer count is trimmed back to 2 layers I would imagine this sort of thing would have the most effect. Of course laying out to appease some of the audiophile sector is guaranteed to give bad results so any extra filtering may help....
http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/slyp167/slyp167.pdf
Also illustrates why true 24 bit is a bit of a dream...
For the DIY designs and cheepo boards fro Ebay where layer count is trimmed back to 2 layers I would imagine this sort of thing would have the most effect. Of course laying out to appease some of the audiophile sector is guaranteed to give bad results so any extra filtering may help....
I would if my box of gear had gone in the correct van when we recently moved house.... years of begging steeling and borrowing equipment wiped out in one move
I would have thought that measurements would have been done though before going public...
Err I have to source components in fancy leaded metal cans sometimes, they are bloody expensive and hard to get these days...
No takers on this, I'm sure, but is there anyone who has implemented the "effect" and then just entirely gone back to the original configuration and listened again? I'm guessing not, but I'd think this would be the bare minimum in terms of attempting to verify the perception of improvement.
I would if my box of gear had gone in the correct van when we recently moved house.... years of begging steeling and borrowing equipment wiped out in one move
I would have thought that measurements would have been done though before going public...
It was a little bit different in this case. First it was made public, to help so for measurements...
Your ideas about measurement approach are welcome.
The FR it was measured, and it drop of course... However, only this result do not explain very well what really happen here, and what to look for to measure further...
I did this of course, and many times: with/without caps in the same circuit/system. Therefore I stand for what I hear/perceive. I`m even sure that all who tried this trick by themselves did this elementary test.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.