Not true. You can achieve -120dB THD+N with ES9018/28/38 and a common gate IV stage. like the D1.
New nick but same old bs.
Just in case Someone needs pictures. I believe this was OPCs last or one of the last versions of NTD1 he sold as boards. it requires some pretty heroic casework for a DAC, more like a small power amp, but as you can see. discrete, zero global feedback and better than -120dB THD+N. I havent seen measurements of this board and his wiki etc is gone after the forum moved, but something like it is already able to do better than -120dB with 9018; adapted for 9028 and 38, I would expect you to be able to get closer to -126dB THD+N, if you can measure it, but at that point I would want it on the same PCB as the dac.
ahh here we are thats the post with the V3 or V4 measures (not sure, you check if you want. any of them meet your guide ..., with any of the ESS parts so even with using a buffalo 2/3 and separate board he was able to measure -122db THD+N. I warn you though, there are FFTs on ^^ that page.
ahh here we are thats the post with the V3 or V4 measures (not sure, you check if you want. any of them meet your guide ..., with any of the ESS parts so even with using a buffalo 2/3 and separate board he was able to measure -122db THD+N. I warn you though, there are FFTs on ^^ that page.
Attachments
Stochastic resonance is more or less the same effect as dither. The Brownian motion of the fluid in the cochlea is already enough to dither your hair cells, or so it was claimed in a footnote of an article I once read; I can try to dig it up if you like. Nonetheless, there is a threshold of hearing, so there must be some kind of noise gate somewhere.
At volumes well above the threshold of hearing, experience shows that soft sounds tend to become less audible in the presence of loud sounds. Hearing a needle drop is easier when there is no hard rock band playing.
IMHO, the human listening experience should always trump the measurements, when the two seem to disagree. As was indicated by others in this thread, the purpose of a home audio system is not simply to measure well, it is to sound close to the original live performance had you been there to hear it. Unfortunately, listening experience has shown many of us that specifications as they are presented today doesn't reliably serve as a predictive proxy of to what degree, if any, the brain will be fooled in to assessing that it is in the presence of an live acoustical event.
That isnt what is controversial. What is controversial is the notion that the Steinway piano is recognisable as realistic on a dac with worse than -90db distortion, but claimed it isnt realistic on the device that measures 'millions' of times better, according to an unidentified and unquantified effect.
Not for me, in a world where people use DSP, digital crossovers and digital volume controls. That does not provide enough headroom IMHO.
and certainly not unnecessarily. intentionally choosing so much worse performance at great effort and expense. I appreciate the intent and I dont have the knowledge to design my own discrete DAC, so I admire the effort as well, but it just seems like a 'solution' looking for a problem and if its distortion you want, there are cheaper, non-destructive ways to achieve it in post.
My post was a tongue in cheek response to Markw4's post earlier. I agree mostly with you. I usually listen to classical music (especially piano) and there are record labels that seem to prefer a rather clinical sound (e.g. Hyperion). For those records a DAC having a more "exciting" sound could be preferable.
Yes. I'm mostly on the same page there too. I think you would not find many who would disagree with that statement outright.
For other use cases, in a passive 2 channel horn system, or whatever your taste, hey, go for it. it will sound vibrant and alive to a certain listeners taste, but it is not because it is more accurate; I think it is perhaps just more familiar. The world is full of less than ideal performance spaces and the most exciting live performances sound alive, because the room is very live and/or amplification soft clipping/saturating. rich microphones with tube capsules can do the same to a human voice. and acoustic instruments have additional discordant resonances, bows and vioins with an edge in harmonics, little jarring in front of you, but that is only one of the harmonics, so it isnt objectionable.
its gorgeous!! Own it
do you get what I mean maybe? These distortions add weight to the scene-scapes we try to bring into our living rooms. It isnt however something I would personally choose to have as an overlay on everything, all the time, undefeatable. Because I listen to a rather wide variety of music. When a recording already uses or contains that sort of effect already, adding more distortion rounds the edges too much; for my taste. imaging takes a hit.
For other use cases, in a passive 2 channel horn system, or whatever your taste, hey, go for it. it will sound vibrant and alive to a certain listeners taste, but it is not because it is more accurate; I think it is perhaps just more familiar. The world is full of less than ideal performance spaces and the most exciting live performances sound alive, because the room is very live and/or amplification soft clipping/saturating. rich microphones with tube capsules can do the same to a human voice. and acoustic instruments have additional discordant resonances, bows and vioins with an edge in harmonics, little jarring in front of you, but that is only one of the harmonics, so it isnt objectionable.
its gorgeous!! Own it
do you get what I mean maybe? These distortions add weight to the scene-scapes we try to bring into our living rooms. It isnt however something I would personally choose to have as an overlay on everything, all the time, undefeatable. Because I listen to a rather wide variety of music. When a recording already uses or contains that sort of effect already, adding more distortion rounds the edges too much; for my taste. imaging takes a hit.
Last edited:
Yes, thats what makes your decay tails pop out ;-) - you see, you are a distortion junky... compression and 2nd - the muzak gets more yummy that way - the correlation is quite obvious looking at the audiophiles and distortion - I have seen it grow the last 5-10 year here... but admit I haven't done the math
-//
I don't see what distortion has to do with headroom. I'm not referring to dynamic range, but to the ratio of the fundamental to the distortion products when the DAC is driven to 0 dBFS.
What defines better sound in this context? Also, how was your listening comparison conducted? Details please.
I specifically brought up the accuracy of output compared to input. Vinyl loses to CD in that department every time.
Also love mind altering substances.Most instances of Homo sapiens love suger and distorsion - it's obvious
That would be the case if one is pursuing self-fi. As for hi-fi, it's a different story.
What qualifies as evidence? I'm asking because for years you've been posting your view on certain type of listening test because it doesn't support your business narrative. So, before I spend time typing, I would like to know if it will be a waste of time or not. Lets see your explanation.
You didn't define it in the context I brought up. For listening comparisons, what is real/true value of the parameter?
By microphone or by your (or your peer's) ears? If former, it may well be the case, if latter, I don't believe it because people's hearing ability decreases with age, especially for those who are past the retirement age.
You post just like andrea_mori.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.