[Ranchu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 00940 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thing is... I don't "prefer" NOS per se. It was an experiment that turned quite ok for the price invested (less than 100€ total). I'm currently working on my new DAC. It uses a src1492 (upsampling from 44.1khz/16bits to 96khz/24bits) followed by a pcm1798 (8x oversampling). I/V done by opamps (servoed opa1632). Quite the opposite of a NOS philosophy and this is where I put my money.

Just a little joke to lighten the mood around here, man. Somebody's gotta do it!

Have fun, and enjoy!

 

[Dan Lavry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranchu /img/forum/go_quote.gif You amuse me, that's all.

That did not amuse me at all. You stated that those OS guys prefer to overlook measurements that they do not support their findings. So here is your chalange:

Go to AKM and look at the data sheets of the upper end DA's.
Go to Analog Devices and look at the data sheets of the upper end DA's.
Go to TI and do the same.

Those data sheets are many pages long, and provide much information. Now show me what is missing and what those guys are trying to avoid, ignore or not address.

The data and specifications are not for a casual reader. They are for the use of proffessional design engineers, which you are not. Chances are that you are not qualified to understand much of it.

If you can find something that is missing, we can talk about it. It is probably there right under your nose.

But if you can not find a missing spec, and I bet such is the case, then it is only right and fair for you to concede... Given what you said, it is very much in order that you do so.

If you do not take it back big time, your credibility is down the drain.

Dan Lavry
Lavry Engineering

 

[thisbenjamin]

.

 

[Ranchu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Lavry /img/forum/go_quote.gif That did not amuse me at all. You stated that those OS guys prefer to overlook measurements that they do not support their findings. So here is your chalange: Go to AKM and look at the data sheets of the upper end DA's. Go to Analog Devices and look at the data sheets of the upper end DA's. Go to TI and do the same. Those data sheets are many pages long, and provide much information. Now show me what is missing and what those guys are trying to avoid, ignore or not address. The data and specifications are not for a casual reader. They are for the use of proffessional design engineers, which you are not. Chances are that you are not qualified to understand much of it. If you can find something that is missing, we can talk about it. It is probably there right under your nose. But if you can not find a missing spec, and I bet such is the case, then it is only right and fair for you to concede... Given what you said, it is very much in order that you do so. If you do not take it back big time, your credibility is down the drain. Dan Lavry Lavry Engineering

Boy, you really don't want to address those traces do you?

All you want to talk about is how dumb I am, Dan, and it's fine with me that you think so. But avoiding the issue and trying to distract readers with various ad hominems and insults really isn't a substitute for a proper rebuttal. Can you stop kicking and screaming, please?

Thank you in advance.

 

[thisbenjamin]

.

 

[Ranchu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thisbenjamin /img/forum/go_quote.gif lol! the "traces" have been addressed 5-6 times (depending on how detailed a explanation you want) since page 7 of this thread. I've seen some trolls in my day Goldfish, but you take the cake.

I've seen some suggestion that they were done improperly, but that doesn't address what they indicate.

Is there is anything further you'd like to add?

 

[thisbenjamin]

.

 

[Ranchu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thisbenjamin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do we need to use crayons? The 'traces' have been addressed, if you haven't the wherewithal to understand the replies - that isn't our fault.

They have not.

It seems we've reached the point where those that cannot 'win' a discussion choose instead to devolve the thread into a flame fest.

Guess it was inevitable.

 

[ironmine]

I understand that while OS DACs fix some problems, but don't they create other problems in the process (non-linear distortions, aliasing, quantization noise, attenuation of signals in the audible range during conversion, phase shifts, pre-ringing, post-ringing, etc.)?

 

[thisbenjamin]

.

 

[00940]

Ranchu: did you read the links I gave you ? They would explain everything.

You have two pictures per DAC (link again to Altmann). One is the step response of the DAC, the other is a 8khz sine played by said DAC. The "problematic" picture is the one about step response since the oversampling ones exhibit pre- and post-ringing, the NOS with analog filter, post-ringing only and the filterless NOS no ringing. The pictures with the sine just demonstrate how much better oversampling DACs are.

I don't know how that Altmann guy measured the "step response" of the DACs. Probably by feeding them a square wave coming from a cd with square waves created on a computer program. The ringing exhibited by the DF1704 is the perfect answer to a square wave under the redbook rules, according to the maths (again, see Werner's posts in the links given). But... it's bad ? No.

Here's the catch: such perfect square waves don't exist on a CD. The anti aliasing filters before the ADC used for recording took care of it. The DAC isn't reproducing the live events and the possible transients exceeding the possibilities of the redbook format. It's reproducing what's on the CD. A square wave won't find its way onto one.

PS: Dan: it's very crude for an explanation, feel free to correct

 

[Dan Lavry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranchu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Boy, you really don't want to address those traces do you? All you want to talk about is how dumb I am, Dan, and it's fine with me that you think so. But avoiding the issue and trying to distract readers with various ad hominems and insults really isn't a substitute for a proper rebuttal. Can you stop kicking and screaming, please? Thank you in advance.

That is dumb! One can screw up a measurement or even paint a curve. I am not suggesting that you did something evil but having my 38 years of design and top notch reputation, and add to it many hundreds of engineering man years by reputable companies be disputed by an un qualified person posting some wrong plot leaves much to be desired!

If some child makes an addition error, you do not call a top math university professor to argue the point. You are way out of your league.

A mouse roaring at lions! You had more then your share of attention. and you already lost your credibility.

Meanwhile, you are the one that is "avoiding the issue and trying to distract readers with various ad hominems and insults really isn't a substitute for a proper rebuttal", and you insaulted hundreds of engineers and thier accomplishments over 20 years. You are NOT TAKING ON THE CHALLANGE to point out what the "OS guys" are overlooking at the data sheets.

I did not think you would even consider looking at the data sheets, which would point out that you plots are just wrong wrong and wrong.

You do have a lot of hutspa.

I am done playing with sandbox.

Dan Lavry

 

[Ranchu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 00940 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ranchu: did you read the links I gave you ? They would explain everything. You have two pictures per DAC (link again to Altmann). One is the step response of the DAC, the other is a 8khz sine played by said DAC. The "problematic" picture is the one about step response since the oversampling ones exhibit pre- and post-ringing, the NOS with analog filter, post-ringing only and the filterless NOS no ringing. The pictures with the sine just demonstrate how much better oversampling DACs are. I don't know how that Altmann guy measured the "step response" of the DACs. Probably by feeding them a square wave coming from a cd with square waves created on a computer program. The ringing exhibited by the DF1704 is the perfect answer to a square wave under the redbook rules, according to the maths (again, see Werner's posts in the links given). But... it's bad ? No. Here's the catch: such perfect square waves don't exist on a CD. The anti aliasing filters before the ADC used for recording took care of it. The DAC isn't reproducing the live events and the possible transients exceeding the possibilities of the redbook format. It's reproducing what's on the CD. A square wave won't find its way onto one. PS: Dan: it's very crude for an explanation, feel free to correct

Thank you!

However the traces in the ADC section show these distortions occuring on the test tone played back through an OS dac when they were not present played through a NOS dac, or on the original NOS recording.

The Altmann Creation ADC

Thank you again for your post with content!

 

[Ranchu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Lavry /img/forum/go_quote.gif T You do have a lot of hutspa. I am done playing with sandbox. Dan Lavry

Bye.

 

[skolapper]

Hello. I'am newbie on this forum and its nice.
Interesting.... Read and read.