Latest Thread Images

Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff)
May 10, 2015 at 5:18 AM Post #5,116 of 6,500
shabta said:
As has been pointed out several times. The title of the thread only changed to DS sucks after a long time and lots of experience. It is based on the thread starters personal experience. You however have stated that the thread is a "big commercial" which is pretty insulting and is pointed at the motivation of the thread starter. The difference between saying  DS sucks and what you are doing is that the thread starter is giving his opinion based on a lot of data points that he explains, whereas what you are doing is simply being insulting.
Click to expand...

The original title of the thread has "Sabre sucks"...not sure if that's better.

So insulting the act of someone insulting others is insulting?
 
May 10, 2015 at 5:31 AM Post #5,117 of 6,500
diamondears said:
How much is each R2R DAC chip? Let's say $250. If in fact they'd present better detail resolution and prevent digital glare, you think audio manufacturers and designers wouldn't budge to get them? Cmon now. And we're not talking here about definition yet (such as bass articulacy) and noise elimination/reduction that over sampling digital filters' main goal is for.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The biggest buyers of DACs in the world are corporations like Samsung, Sony and Apple. If these corporations don't care for the difference between SD and R2R DACs, then there is no longer any reason for the manufacturers to continue producing costly high-spec R2Rs for audio purposes.
 
May 10, 2015 at 5:33 AM Post #5,118 of 6,500
diamondears said:
He's not being "insulted" (which I'm not, just pointing out things) or criticized for his approach, but for his insulting approach. He's being criticized for bashing others to promoted himself or his products. And he hasn't proven that the glare comes from the D-S chip, my suspect is the stock standard digital filter that comes with the chip.

If it's really not the filter and it's the D-S chip, why not use that same or similar standard digital filter with lots of pre and post ringing together with the AD chip? Why make a custom filter for it? Because the filter plays a big role in the digital-ness or glary-ness of the D-S DAC chips being touted as sucking big time.
Click to expand...

 
It seems like you're confusing Mike Moffat for the OP. 
 
May 10, 2015 at 5:36 AM Post #5,119 of 6,500
dreamking said:
It seems like you're confusing Mike Moffat for the OP. 
Click to expand...
The title of this thread and Moffat's t-shirt are strikingly of same architecture and ultimate intent and eventual destination.
 
May 10, 2015 at 5:50 AM Post #5,120 of 6,500
diamondears said:
The original title of the thread has "Sabre sucks"...not sure if that's better.

So insulting the act of someone insulting others is insulting?
Click to expand...

The original title never said anything about Sabre but about chocolate ice cream. It is important for you to comprehend the logical difference between coming to a conclusion based on personal experience and what you are doing, which is claiming that the thread starter has a bad motivation when the evidence clearly contradicts that claim.
 
May 10, 2015 at 6:11 AM Post #5,121 of 6,500
Just for clarification:  Schiit makes 4 DACs priced from $100 to $850.  They all contain d-s DAC chips.  There's also one for $2300 - it is multibit.  To restate:
 
1.  D-S tech is cheap and easily executable by morons.  Which qualifies me at a minimum as an verify experienced moron.
 
2.  Multibit tech with optimal DSP is expensive, requires years to execute, and not suitable for development by imbeciles.
 
3.  Because of this slow development, Schiit would offer this tech as available to existing users of our upgradable products without screwing them.  (Gungnir and Bifrost)
 
4.  Expensive (multi-thousand $) D-S DAC design is a very poor value due to its inherent economy.
 
Schiit Audio Stay updated on Schiit Audio at their sponsor profile on Head-Fi.
 
https://www.facebook.com/Schiit/ http://www.schiit.com/
May 10, 2015 at 6:13 AM Post #5,122 of 6,500
diamondears said:
  If it's really not the filter and it's the D-S chip, why not use that same or similar standard digital filter with lots of pre and post ringing together with the AD chip? Why make a custom filter for it? Because the filter plays a big role in the digital-ness or glary-ness of the D-S DAC chips being touted as sucking big time.
Click to expand...

 
Quite a few manufacturers do that. The Berkeley Alpha and Bricasti use their own filters for example. I've played with Sabre DACs that had USB input capable of 384k input and using iZotope up-sampling with carefully selected settings versus using the stock filters made a noticeable improvement to me.
 
shabta said:
 
diamondears said:
The original title of the thread has "Sabre sucks"...not sure if that's better.

So insulting the act of someone insulting others is insulting?
Click to expand...

The original title never said anything about Sabre but about chocolate ice cream.
Click to expand...

 
Actually, it originally was about how DSD sucks, but IIRC that was changed due to the flame wars that started.
 
Since it has been confused in only a few posts: Insulting technology is OK, as long as you aren't blatantly trolling or flaming (ie: not explaining your disagreement with something). Insulting people is not OK, even indirectly. It's hard to confuse the two. 
smile.gif
 
 
May 10, 2015 at 6:53 AM Post #5,123 of 6,500
currawong said:
Quite a few manufacturers do that. The Berkeley Alpha and Bricasti use their own filters for example. I've played with Sabre DACs that had USB input capable of 384k input and using iZotope up-sampling with carefully selected settings versus using the stock filters made a noticeable improvement to me.


Actually, it originally was about how DSD sucks, but IIRC that was changed due to the flame wars that started.

Since it has been confused in only a few posts: Insulting technology is OK, as long as you aren't blatantly trolling or flaming (ie: not explaining your disagreement with something). Insulting people is not OK, even indirectly. It's hard to confuse the two. :smile:  
Click to expand...


Why allow blanket statement ds sucks at the title ? Ain't it misleading ?
 
May 10, 2015 at 7:03 AM Post #5,124 of 6,500
snip3r77 said:
 
currawong said:
Quite a few manufacturers do that. The Berkeley Alpha and Bricasti use their own filters for example. I've played with Sabre DACs that had USB input capable of 384k input and using iZotope up-sampling with carefully selected settings versus using the stock filters made a noticeable improvement to me.


Actually, it originally was about how DSD sucks, but IIRC that was changed due to the flame wars that started.

Since it has been confused in only a few posts: Insulting technology is OK, as long as you aren't blatantly trolling or flaming (ie: not explaining your disagreement with something). Insulting people is not OK, even indirectly. It's hard to confuse the two. 
smile.gif
 
Click to expand...


Why allow blanket statement ds sucks at the title ? Ain't it misleading ?
Click to expand...


It is discussed in the thread IIRC.
 
May 10, 2015 at 7:26 AM Post #5,126 of 6,500
currawong said:
Quite a few manufacturers do that. The Berkeley Alpha and Bricasti use their own filters for example. I've played with Sabre DACs that had USB input capable of 384k input and using iZotope up-sampling with carefully selected settings versus using the stock filters made a noticeable improvement to me.


Actually, it originally was about how DSD sucks, but IIRC that was changed due to the flame wars that started.

Since it has been confused in only a few posts: Insulting technology is OK, as long as you aren't blatantly trolling or flaming (ie: not explaining your disagreement with something). Insulting people is not OK, even indirectly. It's hard to confuse the two. :smile:  
Click to expand...
Just saying that if we could try a digital filter with high pre and post ringings and a filter without or minimum pre and post ringings on the R2R/AD DAC chips, we could now tell for sure if the culprit is the filter and not the DAC itself.

shabta said:
The original title never said anything about Sabre but about chocolate ice cream. It is important for you to comprehend the logical difference between coming to a conclusion based on personal experience and what you are doing, which is claiming that the thread starter has a bad motivation when the evidence clearly contradicts that claim.
Click to expand...

What are you saying? You mean it's ok for the topic/whole thread to bash, but a few posts such as mine to point out some suspicions? What a hypocrite.
 
May 10, 2015 at 7:51 AM Post #5,128 of 6,500
diamondears said:
He's not being "insulted" (which I'm not, just pointing out things) or criticized for his approach, but for his insulting approach. He's being criticized for bashing others to promoted himself or his products. And he hasn't proven that the glare comes from the D-S chip, my suspect is the stock standard digital filter that comes with the chip.

If it's really not the filter and it's the D-S chip, why not use that same or similar standard digital filter with lots of pre and post ringing together with the AD chip? Why make a custom filter for it? Because the filter plays a big role in the digital-ness or glary-ness of the D-S DAC chips being touted as sucking big time.
Click to expand...

 
 
The AD chip wasn't originally designed for audio. It's designed specifically for military applications. Which means that Mike and others would have had to create their own filters along with other custom code modifications.
 
Here's an idea: if you are nice to Schiit and if you are open to signing an NDA to emulate such "standard" digital filters for comparison purposes, they may even accept your proposal. After then you can compare away to your heart's content.
 
May 10, 2015 at 7:54 AM Post #5,129 of 6,500
baldr said:
  Just for clarification:  Schiit makes 4 DACs priced from $100 to $850.  They all contain d-s DAC chips.  There's also one for $2300 - it is multibit.  To restate:
 
1.  D-S tech is cheap and easily executable by morons.  Which qualifies me at a minimum as an verify experienced moron.
 
2.  Multibit tech with optimal DSP is expensive, requires years to execute, and not suitable for development by imbeciles.
 
3.  Because of this slow development, Schiit would offer this tech as available to existing users of our upgradable products without screwing them.  (Gungnir and Bifrost)
 
4.  Expensive (multi-thousand $) D-S DAC design is a very poor value due to its inherent economy.
Click to expand...


Thank you Mike for that post.
 
I think it explains Schiit:s marketing philosophy very well.
One of the best D-S chip with good engineering + upgradeability.
What is the problem people? Look at the prices, you can be very sure that this company is not screwing you, when talking about PRICE / PERFORMANCE.
 
All the best for everyone here. Peace :)
n-a
 
May 10, 2015 at 7:55 AM Post #5,130 of 6,500
diamondears said:
What are you saying? You mean it's ok for the topic/whole thread to bash, but a few posts such as mine to point out some suspicions? What a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

 
You seem hell-bent on proving the point that you don't understand the difference between bashing a technical solution and insulting someone (notice how your resorted to name calling in the quote above). Those two are not equivalent. Some people who like Planars think and post how Dynamic headphones are inferior based on the technology employed, that is totally ok. However, It is a false equivalency between someone calling out DS designs as inherently flawed one the one hand and suggesting that someone raises "suspicions" and is just putting on a "big commercial" for expressing their belief that a technology is flawed on the other hand. 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Back
Top