Read all of it, that has got me thinking.
This fits into the fact that it does absolutely zero for ladder and NOS-DACs, so there might be a proximity effect from the d-s modulator that is contaminating the final output? They are cramming in so much in. I know I am using layman's terms, but is the layout very conventionally the same for all DAC manufacturers? If so, this could also explain why they behave similarly in this respect. Because that is another clue, whether B-B, ESS or other brands, this is common to all of them. Are they blindly following the same layout that could explain this?
Steve Bolser is going to hand-make a 1-bit impulse stimulus file that he feels could be used to come up with a lot of data that can be analysed. Wouldn't it be great if something shows up in that data?
We need to find out and it that is what is happening. Too many people are hearing something - can't just turn a blind eye to that.
Hopefully, we can put these kind of financial motivation charges to bed right here and now.
Joe has freely provided all of the details required for any competent electronics hobbyist to make the suggested modification on their own, which is the very essence of DIY. Audio hobbyist who do not feel competent are free to ask a friend who is competent, or even commercial electronics shop, to make the modifications. This then still leaves out hobbyists who, for whatever reason, are uncomfortable with any of those options. Should those hobbyists want Joe to provide the modification directly shouldn't they have that option?
Concerning in general those having for-profit commercial audio interests, yet also freely make DIY contributions. Do we really want to engage in witch hunts for such people? Anyone answering yes, then needs to inform us of when they will next be going after John Curl or Nelson Pass. Please spare me the obligatory reflexive scream of self-righteous outrage that I would dare mention John and Nelson and Joe in the same paragraph. The point is not that they share audio luminary status, the point is that they all have commercial audio interests.
What is the logic of penalizing any one of them for sharing their time and knowledge with the DIY community simply becasue they also generate an income via audio? If their freely offered DIY contributions spontaneously stimulate interest in their commercial offerings, such can be true for any of them, and what is the problem with that?
Last edited:
Yes, the importance of this is what I'm getting at.
My soldering iron has a switch to isolate the earth connection to the barrel/tip.
This allows on the fly A/B testing/comparison on live systems....very useful indeed.
Dan.
Last edited:
I only ask because to not do this is the mark of the absolute amateur. I, for instance, have never undone a "mod" no matter how silly or ill-conceived. In every case, I sat back and beheld my work, and said it was good. Or great. Expectation bias mixed with laziness, I guess.
All of my work also takes an inordinate amount of time to complete, what with my questionable technique, so there'd be no point in reversion absent the memory of what had gone before. Love your iron idea.
All of my work also takes an inordinate amount of time to complete, what with my questionable technique, so there'd be no point in reversion absent the memory of what had gone before. Love your iron idea.
Everyone should look at how complicated those mixed signal boards were and how subtle some of the errors were. We routinely re-spin boards on 3 day turn at an expense of sometimes $1000's to fix these things, they happen no matter how much work is put in up front.
I don't see the link to their commercial websites in Nelson Pass' and John Curl's posts. With each post Joe keeps advertising his bussiness in diy forum.
The truth is that the DIY side has little effect on my professional work. There is of course an overlap, but not as great as some may imagine. I do work for shops, recording studios, consultancy and stuff like that. DIY was for fun... hah! Joke's on me. Still, made friends.
Right, because Nelson Pass' commercial website is so obscure that no one could easily find it should they want to. Please, tell me that you have some better objection to offer.
Yep they are fun to do, did a multi channel high speed ADC/DAC board for testing a sensor, it was a labour of love (removing copper round input pins to minimise capacitive coupling etc.) all the care in the world and they still bite you....
Further these sort of layouts must have at least one contiguous ground and preferably more, ground layers for return currents and to form power plane/ground plane pairs for planar capacitance for the supplies... the more the merrier
Last edited:
.
I was told, some years back by a friend at TI that you needed a minimum of 4 layers to even hope to get 15 bits resolution out of a DAC. But of course audio works differently to precision analogue where he was!
I may suggest you two alternative which may make you happy: boycott the Joe`s link and do not click on it, or introduce a link in your signature, so to advertise you too for your private business.
However, is quite obvious now that your only and single target/preoccupation/interest you may have here, is Joe and his private business. Else you have nothing to do at all with the discussed subject, the DIY world, measurements, tests, and so on, this thread is mainly meant for.
Why do you pollute this discussion here with your OT interventions?
The problem is with the value of the particular contribution. There is no doubt about the value of what John Curl or Nelson Pass are offering. I've yet to see an offering by Pass that wasn't technically sound. And when they make dubious claims, even they are criticized as anyone else (search "bybee" if you don't believe me).
Furthermore, they don't need the recognition of the DIY crowd to sustain their commercial offerings. They achieved their status in the audio industry before this forum.
What's on offer here is far less clear and it doesn't take a cynical mind to wonder if the only aim of this thread isn't to establish legitimacy for a mod of dubious value.
Sorry if I'm getting cynical but I tried at the begining of this thread to stay focused on technical issues. All I got was some handwaving and a clear unwillingness to go into details.
Between the acrimony, victimhood, deception, and manipulation, (by many parties that are wont to accuse the other of the same things they're doing...not all) my interest here is waning fast. Doesn't help that I'm having operating point convergence problems (and floating nodes) with TI's LM4562 model in LTspice, which is my primary investment here.
Has someone worked through these issues before and can/is willing provide (probably links) to methods/solutions I can use to figure out these convergence problems?
Probably for another thread anyhow, as the rails are long since gone here.
Has someone worked through these issues before and can/is willing provide (probably links) to methods/solutions I can use to figure out these convergence problems?
Probably for another thread anyhow, as the rails are long since gone here.
I suggest that the perception of value is not for you or me to define or impose on anyone else. With consumer goods in particular, value exists in the eye of the beholder. That said, the cost is potentially next to nothing. For the cost reason alone, it's hard to imagine much risk in terms of not attaining value, however one might define it.
The first sentence above is contradicted by the third sentence.
Bybee is an invalid comparison. No version of his products, of which I'm aware, are freely offered for DIY.
Where is your evidence that Joe needs DIY crowd recognition to sustain his business? This seems purely an unsubstantiated assertion.
What's been on offer here seems crystal clear to me. It's a simple, low cost and freely offered DIY modification that many feel produces a more musically satisfying SDM DAC sound character - which has not been proclaimed as a sound that's more accurate to the source. That may be surprising, but it's about the whole of it. No anti-gravity. No UFOs, No magic. Seems like a hugely disproportional level of consternation is being generated from somewhere over this, doesn't it?
There may indeed be confusion being generated, but I suggest that most of it isn't being generated by Joe.
I can appreciate your frustration and your feeling cynical about this topic. To my knowledge, the presently known technical information has only to do with how to technically implement the modification in order to subjectively elicit the effect in question. I believe that Joe discovered these implementation details empirically, not theoretically. The search for an explanation of the underlying technical cause is another matter, and is one of the answers hoped to be yet identified. If you've seen any technical 'handwaving', it's probably was conjecture on possible underlying cause, but likely was not regarding physical implementation of the suggested modification. I think you possibly may have mistaken the lack of known causative technical detail as an unwillingness to go into detail.
Last edited:
The reason for his unwillingness to go into detail is clear. He has stated that himself: he does not know the details.
Moreover, he is unable to test and does not trust ears-only listening tests. He's declined an offer by a reputable individual to do the testing for him, claiming that the individual making the offer is out to get him.
Instead, he asserts that we should implement the modification, measure it and then perform listening tests for him. Which he will disregard if the outcome is unfavorable.
However, if the tests are positive, what are the chances that you'll see the results posted on his commercial web-site?
I believe, I just said that, so far as physical causation is concerned. Joe has provided, however, all details for anyone to build an DIY implementation. Should you believe otherwise, please post an example for us to see.
Doesn't seem like an unreasonable concern, given the long established record of pointed criticism made by certain otherwise reputable individuals.
I think the more relevant question is, will you disregard a favorable outcome? Will you risk finding that out? I don't see how you can lose. If you experience a null result, you can freely report that. If you instead hear the described effect, then who knows, perhaps, you will be the one to discover the underlying technical cause. Either way, there's seems little risk for Joe. Should you anecdotally obtain a null result, that would be nut a single data point, and no more significant than someone else who anecdotally finds a positive result. I can think of few subjective tests where all test subjects agree.
Will you here commit to creating and reporting on the experiment?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.