Dear Rob
I have been reading about Dave and Hugo on your various posts, so some key differences I could pick up are
- Noise Shaper for Dave is at -350 DB resolution compared to -200 DB for Hugo
- The WTA filter for Hugo is as 16 FS, but for Dave it is 256FS WTA filter. Does Mojo also have 16 FS WTA filter?
- Analog stages for Dave vs Hugo, some differences.
- Pulse Array 20 E for Dave and 4E for Hugo
You previously posted on your thread watts up "Now replacing the WTA from 16FS (data every 1,417 nS) to 256 FS (data every 89 nS) - - it is a very subtle difference, but was nonetheless extremely audible."
I guess all this means that the Dave is really another league of performance compared to Hugo / Mojo, and it was easily audible to my ears, as you said the Dave has better timing.
I'm sure many would be interested to know more such details about what separated Dave from Hugo/Mojo.
Recently someone posted, that one cannot really gain an understanding of Dave based on the performance on Hugo, having heard both, yes I agree with this statement.
You also posted
"The Dave project allowed me to understand exactly what I had stumbled upon, and in the case of Dave, further maximize it. Now the job of a DAC is to converted sampled data back into a continuous waveform exactly as was in the ADC converter, and I had improved the filters within Hugo that go from 16FS to 2048FS - this meant that I had recreated the analogue waveform in the time domain to a much better accuracy than before, and it was this better accuracy that gave the subjective improvements. I had done this in order to improve jitter sensitivity, reduce RF noise levels, all to reduce noise floor modulation, which makes a DAC sound smoother - but it also had these subjective timing benefits.
The filtering was a three stage digital filter, and means I can recreate the analogue waveform accurately to a 9.6 nS resolution. All other DAC's work to a resolution of at most 16FS, which is only 1.4 uS. Moreover, getting to this resolution is not good either, as they have very limited tap lengths so it has gross timing errors too. The fact that I have very long tap length WTA filters, plus the fact that filtering is at 9.6nS resolution, gives Mojo this unique timing performance - and its that, above all else, that gives it its musicality."
I guess my question is, I'm about confused about what these numbers mean, the 9.6 nS resolution you mentioned compared to the WTA filter resolution you mentioned for Hugo 1,417 NS and then 89 Ns (this I think means before the 2048 FS upsampling). I think the 9.6 probably means after the 2048 FS upsampling, but some more detail from you would be much appreciated.
Does it mean, ultimately, Dave, Hugo and Mojo all have 9.6 Ns resolution?
Thanks and Regards