So, your answer to my invitation to conduct the experiment and freely report on whatever you find, if anything, is, no. That position sounds quite intransigent. Alright. However, since you feel there's nothing here for anyone but Joe, why do you still remain? I don't understand.
Let's take an example. Simulations show that the actual frequency response with a I/V DAC and the 3R3/1uF filter varies depending on the opamp used and the value of the I/V resistors. See post 75 and 91 for the sims.
I thus asked Joe for the exact circuit used to generate the FR graph (not the hacked datasheet's image), to see if I was doing anything wrong. Is it really an excessive request ? Never got a straight answer, only delaying comments.
There is obvious that are individuals here who are not interested at all about the discussed subject. They do not even care to contribute with anything to the topic, but have a very clear task: to get the person who presented this cap approach.
This is very disturbing for all others, and it really pollute and divert the on topic discussions.
It came in some participants with real contributions, and clear intentions to do something constructive and serious in this respect. They almost can not get any attention, because systematically those polluters divert the discussion to fully different directions. This is both sad, frustrating, and stupid.
Everybody got in the beginning of this thread all the informations necessary to implement themselves this circuit, experiment with it, and use it for free.
What is very hard to understand for me, is why all these persons interested exclusively about Joe`s business or commercial involvement, do not use the free informations here to build and commercialize a device/product with this filter implemented, making/conducting their own business, based on these free shared informations here?
It will be a much more lucrative using of time and energy, than just disturbing others focus for the discussed topic here...
This is very disturbing for all others, and it really pollute and divert the on topic discussions.
It came in some participants with real contributions, and clear intentions to do something constructive and serious in this respect. They almost can not get any attention, because systematically those polluters divert the discussion to fully different directions. This is both sad, frustrating, and stupid.
Everybody got in the beginning of this thread all the informations necessary to implement themselves this circuit, experiment with it, and use it for free.
What is very hard to understand for me, is why all these persons interested exclusively about Joe`s business or commercial involvement, do not use the free informations here to build and commercialize a device/product with this filter implemented, making/conducting their own business, based on these free shared informations here?
It will be a much more lucrative using of time and energy, than just disturbing others focus for the discussed topic here...
It is just as instransigent as Joe Rasmussen's position. I'd follow him out the door at your request.
Of course I'm biased. I'm a human being. Anyone who claims they aren't or claims they can put their biases aside is lying, either to others or to himself. That's the whole purpose of putting methods, controls, and results out in public for scrutiny.
scott wurcer said:
I'd be highly surprised if it weren't there. The question is, if I put that pole somewhere else downstream, do any of the measurements change? Is that pole audible? If so, is it audibly distinguishable from the downstream pole?
Which effect? A -1dB rolloff at 20kHz, or the same rolloff early in the chain and compensated for later in the chain?Ken Newton said:
If the test was valid (i.e. the tester tested what he thought he was testing - not always true even with lab electrical measurements, let alone subjective tests) then of course I would accept the result. You don't seem to grasp that I am not that interested in 'proving it to myself' - in fact I have been complaining about those who keep insisting that I should. I don't have to 'prove to myself' how a potential divider works, or how a first order filter works or any other circuit technique.
I have no difficulty in believing that a -1dB rolloff at 20kHz may be audible to some people, and may be considered pleasant by some people. I have no difficulty in believing that a change in ultrasonics entering a subsequent active stage may affect the level of intermods, and thus may be audible. Audibility is not what I question. It is mechanism that I question.
Sorry, Joe. I'm afraid that the Universe imposes rigid science and we can't change that.Joe Rasmussen said:
There is another thread about a different topic in which someone appears to be trying to use democracy to settle a technical argument.
Hawskford does some realted investigation in:
https://web.archive.org/web/2010081...Current steering transimpedance amplifier.pdf
however most will get stuck on his discrete I/V design and not read on down to his op amp I/V ~ 21 pages in
I played in sim with the op amp I/V - a question is op amp stability with a Cap shunt on the input and feedback C giving pure C load on the output - and free Spice models aren't at all good for these effects - the manufacturers seem to have given up on high frequency validity in Spice macromodels that the modeling techniques in their own app notes show how to do
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digi...sford-iv-nested-loop-op-amps.html#post2218591
I have pointed out many times that this examination of DAC I/V transient error supposed audible effects would appear to be technically addressed by Analog Devices poorly advertised "highly linear" input op amps from the ADA48xx series
recent decade high speed FET input seems likely good too except the noise corners are often higher than wanted for audio
https://web.archive.org/web/2010081...Current steering transimpedance amplifier.pdf
however most will get stuck on his discrete I/V design and not read on down to his op amp I/V ~ 21 pages in
I played in sim with the op amp I/V - a question is op amp stability with a Cap shunt on the input and feedback C giving pure C load on the output - and free Spice models aren't at all good for these effects - the manufacturers seem to have given up on high frequency validity in Spice macromodels that the modeling techniques in their own app notes show how to do
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digi...sford-iv-nested-loop-op-amps.html#post2218591
I have pointed out many times that this examination of DAC I/V transient error supposed audible effects would appear to be technically addressed by Analog Devices poorly advertised "highly linear" input op amps from the ADA48xx series
recent decade high speed FET input seems likely good too except the noise corners are often higher than wanted for audio
Last edited:
Oh, but I do grasp that. I simply had hoped that your own ears might persuade you that, just possibly, you don't already know everything there is to know about all possible mechanisms.
No, what you are doing is to use the fact that a mechanism hasn't yet been conclusively identified as the basis to deny an subjective effect detectable by listening.
Rigidity comes in many forms, including psychological.
Last edited:
jcx said:
jcx,
That echos my experience as well. I once sim'd Hawksford's nested-feedback op-amp I2V, but never could obtain a stable output. The simulation always predicted oscillation. While I didn't pursue the circuit further, I always wondered whether the actual circuit would've proved stable.
Hi Joe,
Just for your own information, being a moderator only means we have extra work to do over that of a normal member. We are still subject to all the rules that you are. We can't let the additional duties muzzle members who do more work. When I post as a moderator, I normally use this tag to signify that ---->
You can't miss that, now can you?
I have the same problem with others that do similar things to equipment and approach them in the same manner. For years (over 30 now) I have had to clean up after happy individuals that modify equipment. The problems range from horrible workmanship, sometimes causing a total loss, to circuit changes that negatively impact the base performance of the equipment. You advertise on your own web site that you perform some of those things I have to fix. Your clock change is also not an improvement, although it may not cause a noticeable change in performance. These things are factual and you only need to study a little to see what the truth is.
You are not being picked on Joe. I am treating you exactly the same way I have others for many years now. The only thing I do not know is what your actual workmanship is like, and I doubt I will see any due to your home location.
One does wonder at your current business practices when you have no way to determine what the performance of the equipment is like. You are looking for a sound card to do the job of a signal analyzer (which I have). I don't know if you even have a distortion analyzer (a real one). How about a frequency standard and instruments that can give you a standard deviation, or even the correct frequency. How about your work bench? Do you have good tools and a controlled temperature soldering station? I have my doubts as you are not investing in a lucrative business in a way that you can tell whether your work has compromised a piece of equipment or not. Do you even have a decent analog 'scope? For a DSO to see an eye pattern properly, you're way up in money and your comments this far tell me you wouldn't spend the money.
Talk to me once you have invested in the equipment that you need to confirm the work you have done is properly done and the equipment operation has not been negatively affected. Right now you have zero quality control, and listening to it doesn't count. That is called a functional test, not a qualitative test.
-Chris
We post as normal members and withhold doing moderation duties in threads we participate in. Don't forget to mention that please.
Just for your own information, being a moderator only means we have extra work to do over that of a normal member. We are still subject to all the rules that you are. We can't let the additional duties muzzle members who do more work. When I post as a moderator, I normally use this tag to signify that ---->
You can't miss that, now can you?I have the same problem with others that do similar things to equipment and approach them in the same manner. For years (over 30 now) I have had to clean up after happy individuals that modify equipment. The problems range from horrible workmanship, sometimes causing a total loss, to circuit changes that negatively impact the base performance of the equipment. You advertise on your own web site that you perform some of those things I have to fix. Your clock change is also not an improvement, although it may not cause a noticeable change in performance. These things are factual and you only need to study a little to see what the truth is.
You are not being picked on Joe. I am treating you exactly the same way I have others for many years now. The only thing I do not know is what your actual workmanship is like, and I doubt I will see any due to your home location.
I have dealt with a few people that say the same as you just have. Once those customers see the truth their tunes generally change. Your song is pretty much the same one many sing, maybe your values are a touch richer than mine are. Please give them my contact info if you wish, and have a ball.
One does wonder at your current business practices when you have no way to determine what the performance of the equipment is like. You are looking for a sound card to do the job of a signal analyzer (which I have). I don't know if you even have a distortion analyzer (a real one). How about a frequency standard and instruments that can give you a standard deviation, or even the correct frequency. How about your work bench? Do you have good tools and a controlled temperature soldering station? I have my doubts as you are not investing in a lucrative business in a way that you can tell whether your work has compromised a piece of equipment or not. Do you even have a decent analog 'scope? For a DSO to see an eye pattern properly, you're way up in money and your comments this far tell me you wouldn't spend the money.
Talk to me once you have invested in the equipment that you need to confirm the work you have done is properly done and the equipment operation has not been negatively affected. Right now you have zero quality control, and listening to it doesn't count. That is called a functional test, not a qualitative test.
-Chris
Coris,
2 years is long enough to have assembled equipment and have detailed data on what is going on. He initially requested assistance to do this work which was offered. Not only has he declined the assistance, from a member with a sterling reputation for fairness, he has now stated that he can't trust that individual and will not co-operate.
Coris, you are either in on this with Joe, or you have had the wool pulled over your eyes by an expert. Through all of this, I would still consider any complete findings Joe wishes to share. At the moment I feel that the actual goal of this thread was pure and simple advertisement.
-Chris (no symbol, so I posted as a member only - just to be clear)
Sorry, but what Joe does as his business has everything to do with what happens here. As he is a professional audio person, he doesn't get the DIY rock to hide under. He must be held to the professional level he will no doubt claim to hold at some later date. He is aware what is required to confirm results, no matter how off the wall they may be. Once you begin dealing with the outside world, you know have some responsibility to back up your claims. As soon as $$ changes hands for this project on the first unit he works on, he is now responsible for the well being of the equipment he worked on and any warranty on his work. Now he is at a completely different level from the little DIY guy (or girl).
2 years is long enough to have assembled equipment and have detailed data on what is going on. He initially requested assistance to do this work which was offered. Not only has he declined the assistance, from a member with a sterling reputation for fairness, he has now stated that he can't trust that individual and will not co-operate.
Coris, you are either in on this with Joe, or you have had the wool pulled over your eyes by an expert. Through all of this, I would still consider any complete findings Joe wishes to share. At the moment I feel that the actual goal of this thread was pure and simple advertisement.
-Chris (no
symbol, so I posted as a member only - just to be clear)
None of that is true.
1. I have no idea what will be the outcome of the test - and if the results are negative, it doesn't means hundreds of people are deaf. Over and over I have said, let's just find out if we can measure it and I have promised full disclosure. There are no downsides.
2. No, they won't. I have promised full disclosure in the forum where I brought it up for discussion. So far been talking to heaps of people on the phone etc, everybody is hoping for a good outcome test wise. Again, no downsides, just the truth.
Nothing to gain for others? Quite the opposite, there is a LOT to gain for EVERYBODY - and we don't even need a test. You could be a beneficiary even right now, go back and read from Post #1 and pick something to try. Other skeptics have done that and come around. Maybe you will too?
BTW, I see that you have not donated money to www.diyaudio.com - I see that Scott Wurcer has, billshurv too, and Coris. So have I and it wasn't the minimum amount. Strange, isn't it?
Hi Chris
You have given me an opportunity to set a few things straight, so I hope you will allow me.
But the short answer would have been:
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, a lot. Thousands of dollars worth.
I do, and it is very expensive and the same one that Roger Sanders (ex Martin-Logan) told me he uses too, designing as he does, both amplifiers and speakers.
Re the cheap distortion analyser, I was looking for one, not because I didn't already have one, but one that was recommended as compatible with ARTA, and mainly because of Steve Bolser. Yesterday bought one for $200 and the ARTA chapter 2 test, it passes THD and THD+N very nicely. But my very expensive analyser is in another class, better by an order plus.
But I wanted to share the measurements so that other would take the Bolser stimulus file and repeat/confirm for themselves (with Bolser's OK to release the file), so it comes back to my repeated assurance of full disclosure. I promise, I will give.
So I paid good money out of my own pocket to help others repeat the same in ARTA - and I get slapped down for that?
Classic example, the wrong interpretation based on incomplete information.
It seems that no matter what I say, the mud has already stuck here and others just weigh into me. Any defense of myself gets looked upon as self-serving. That is not fair.
I have an idea:
Tony 'wintermute' the Moderator, he is not that far from here, ask him to drop in - any time.
Oh, I must mention my soldering iron, about $700 and have you heard of Curie Heat technology. A quick look-around and I see that I have six soldering irons.
Sorry, but I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Best laugh or go crazy. Yep, that's the better option.
Cheers, Joe
You have given me an opportunity to set a few things straight, so I hope you will allow me.
But the short answer would have been:
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, a lot. Thousands of dollars worth.
I do, and it is very expensive and the same one that Roger Sanders (ex Martin-Logan) told me he uses too, designing as he does, both amplifiers and speakers.
Re the cheap distortion analyser, I was looking for one, not because I didn't already have one, but one that was recommended as compatible with ARTA, and mainly because of Steve Bolser. Yesterday bought one for $200 and the ARTA chapter 2 test, it passes THD and THD+N very nicely. But my very expensive analyser is in another class, better by an order plus.
But I wanted to share the measurements so that other would take the Bolser stimulus file and repeat/confirm for themselves (with Bolser's OK to release the file), so it comes back to my repeated assurance of full disclosure. I promise, I will give.
So I paid good money out of my own pocket to help others repeat the same in ARTA - and I get slapped down for that?
Classic example, the wrong interpretation based on incomplete information.
It seems that no matter what I say, the mud has already stuck here and others just weigh into me. Any defense of myself gets looked upon as self-serving. That is not fair.
I have an idea:
Tony 'wintermute' the Moderator, he is not that far from here, ask him to drop in - any time.
Oh, I must mention my soldering iron, about $700 and have you heard of Curie Heat technology. A quick look-around and I see that I have six soldering irons.
Sorry, but I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Best laugh or go crazy. Yep, that's the better option.
Cheers, Joe
SY - Certainly you remember my test of copper wires vs mud wires. Most people could not tell the difference. Ergo, DBT is flawed. You should know that.
There is obvious that are individuals here who are not interested at all about the discussed subject. They do not even care to contribute with anything to the topic, but have a very clear task: to get the people who doubt this cap approach.Coris said:
My ears can do many things, including supporting my spectacles and enabling me to hear, but one thing my ears can't do is understand circuit diagrams.Ken Newton said:
You obviously have not read my posts sufficiently carefully. Far from denying a subjective effect I have said several times that I find a subjective effect to be quite plausible. However, people who have made this mod don't seem to agree on what that subjective effect is. It could be, of course, that the effect of adding a shunt capacitor to different DAC circuits is, well, different! There could be a different "Rasmussen Effect" for every circuit, although I would expect some commonality e.g. a cap across an opamp input virtual ground is likely to do similar things whatever the details but this could be different from a cap across a transformer.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.