New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by JaZZ

I'm still trying to find out how many times the Hugo's DAC upsamples. In this article I found three numbers: «up to 32 times», «2048 times» and from there to «104 MHz» (≈ 2358 times relative to 44.1 kHz) in the context of noise shaping. Rob Watts himself mentions «16 times» – due to digital volume control and crossfeed – in one of his previous posts in this thread.
Careful! The Hugo certainly doesn't upsample by a factor of 26,368, if that's what you mean. Maybe 16 or 32 times. Is this mentioned anywhere? And I don't get what you mean by a sine wave being aliased. It may be aliased after being sampled with an inadequate sampling frequency – nothing that can be corrected by an anti-aliasing filter subsequently. The latter is there to prevent aliasing beforehand.   As I understand it now, the filtered signal is calculated on the...
After reading joeexp's post more carefully, I'm realizing that «taps» aren't really the equivalent of passive filter components in the speaker world. In fact they represents the number of samples used for creating the filtered signal. Nevertheless, I suppose the tap length is indeed used to create a sharper and steeper filter in the Hugo.
It's fascinating to look at an infinite tap length. An infinite number of taps (= an infinitely sharp and steep low-pass filter) means that (let's say) a 22 kHz tone still has zero drop-off compared to a 20, 10 or 1 kHz tone. Whereas a tone of 22.0000001 kHz is muted by 144 dB (at a bit depth of 24 dB), thus completely eliminated. Such a sharp filter also has an extremely strong resonance, technically speaking it has a Q factor of ∞. So as soon as any tone is running...
 Not quite. Taps aren't the anti-aliasing filter, but the filter consists of taps. Like I tried to display in a previous post, they roughly correspond to C and L (capacitance and inductance) in a speaker's crossover network. The more taps the anti-aliasing filter comprises, the sharper and steeper it is (and I stick to this interpretation till someone corrects me).HD recordings don't have a «strong anti-aliasing applied», they actually don't need it, at least not so...
 It happened just once so far with mine.
No, that doesn't look like me. I'm a rather bad wake-upper. But I have to clarify one thing: Headphones and speakers are neither humans nor animals. If they were, I wouldn't be so cruel to get their muscles strain and relax by electrical pulses within a few microseconds. I don't know where you've got your analogy from, but it's definitely wrong. You can't damage your headphones with allegedly harmful signals which wouldn't do the same after thousands of hours of...
 Please, let's end this topic here! I don't agree with you, but don't want to argue about it in this thread.
I forgot to mention: Due to its sampling rate of 2.822 MHz and its 1-bit architecture, DSD64 allows for just 176 amplitude steps per single wave at 16 kHz – the equivalent of 7,46 bit in PCM. And this under one ideal precondition: a pure triangle wave. At 20 Hz there are 141,120 amplitude steps available at best, corresponding to 17,1 bit in PCM.
Digital-to-analogue «conversion» is indeed simpler with DSD, and it avoids the linearity problems some PCM DACs may suffer from. In exchange it's noisy, an issue under suspicion of being responsible for sound corruptions.   In any event it's of no use to store digital data as DSD files. Most of them have been PCM files at some point – for editing purposes they have to anyway. So they could be stored in PCM and as such require less space for the same data density. If need...
New Posts  All Forums: