[theeclone]

I suggest you google redbook cd.

It's just a standard. If a DAC supports 192K is it non-redbook compliant?

 

[Daniel Johnston]

The second #3

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wha...n-robert-hunter.784471/page-954#post-16995835

Alas, already mentioned and denied.

All we know for sure is it‘s $450 piece of Schiit.

 

[OldRoadToad]

It's a beautiful thing when a top and a bottom come together to Syn

Superb! I dare not risk broffending any one (WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE) so I shall keep my wit chained up. Again, S U P E R B!

ORT

 

[adias]

It's just a standard. If a DAC supports 192K is it non-redbook compliant?

Redbook or not a DAC always has a LPF. Always. And yes, on a scope a sine wave (within the audio band) at the output of any DAC does not have stair-steps (that is a bad graphical representation).

 

[theeclone]

Superb! I dare not risk broffending any one (WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE) so I shall keep my wit chained up. Again, S U P E R B!

ORT

I heart ORT

 

[OldRoadToad]

Oh god it’s going to be a schiit light box. https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/specialty-products/LB100

Light as in "less calories" or "less filling"?

ORT

 

[theeclone]

Redbook or not a DAC always has a LPF. Always. And yes, on a scope a sine wave (within the audio band) at the output of any DAC does not have stair-steps (that is a bad graphical representation).

Methinks you should revisit Jason & my replies. If you don't have a brickwall you may get stairsteps. Plus the link I posted clearly shows your statement is false. NOS DACs do exist that don't have an LPF.

 

[O8h7w]

The second #3

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wha...n-robert-hunter.784471/page-954#post-16995835

Ehm... PCM, PDM (as in DSD), PWM - isn't that the end of what you can do with digital? If we define digital as running on two fixed levels and a fixed clock. Maybe one of them can represent an audio signal in some non-standard way that somehow makes it interesting?

Or maybe interesting schiit happens if we mess with the entire definition of digital and start modulating the clock. Not sure about that one

Or maybe in which way the digital signal represents the analog one isn't even what he's talking about. But if so I've got no idea what he's talking about!

Very intriguing

 

[OldRoadToad]

Remember the movie Idiocracy? It's now a documentary...lol

It is as if I walk around in the film every single day. Even I appear above average in comparison to many of these beings. The film could also be looked at as a bit of a "mockumentary".

ORT

 

[OldRoadToad]

And the world's first free-range foraged fuses.

So long as they are polarized and marked accordingly to so that maroons like I can ensure correct current flow.
'n' Schiit.

ORT

 

[OldRoadToad]

Alas, already mentioned and denied.

All we know for sure is it‘s $450 piece of Schiit.

While it is true that you can not polish a turd a piece of Schiit already shines. I really hope it is some thing that many will find as useful to them as it is unique.

ORT

 

[LobalWarming]

While it is true that you can not polish a turd a piece of Schiit already shines. I really hope it is some thing that many will find as useful to them as it is unique.

ORT

That's true... but soon enough we'll be able to polish our own Urd.

 

[O8h7w]

NOS DACs do exist that don't have an LPF.

(it's just unfathomably stupid)

In my not-so-humble opinion.

If the sampling rate is high enough (which means OS, probably a lot) that the ultrasonics are far beyond what even poses a risk of making the tweeters vibrate at all, and all amplification components will tolerate them without ill effect, and you have cabling and connectors that are standard for HF stuff not audio stuff so that you mitigate the reflections and what not, then... and only then, I think... maybe removing the LPF makes sense. All that together should, I think, result in a system with way-better-than-normal transient response (if you have an extremely good upsampling filter). Worth trying, at that point (I mean if you do have such equipment for other reasons, buying it to test this is definitely not worth it).

But for NOS? Nope. Ultrasonics anywhere close to the audible range are a bad thing, I'm quite sure of that.

 

[theeclone]

(it's just unfathomably stupid)

In my not-so-humble opinion.

If the sampling rate is high enough (which means OS, probably a lot) that the ultrasonics are far beyond what even poses a risk of making the tweeters vibrate at all, and all amplification components will tolerate them without ill effect, and you have cabling and connectors that are standard for HF stuff not audio stuff so that you mitigate the reflections and what not, then... and only then, I think... maybe removing the LPF makes sense. All that together should, I think, result in a system with way-better-than-normal transient response (if you have an extremely good upsampling filter). Worth trying, at that point (I mean if you do have such equipment for other reasons, buying it to test this is definitely not worth it).

But for NOS? Nope. Ultrasonics anywhere close to the audible range are a bad thing, I'm quite sure of that.

Yeah, I'm with you. I'd rather always have an LPF in a DAC. Just sayin, it's not always there and in the case of Schiit DACs in NOS mode, even when upsampling, you can still get stairsteps as I understand it, bc the LPF is optimized for 8x but the highest you can effectively feed a Schiit DAC is 4x.

 

[adias]

Methinks you should revisit Jason & my replies. If you don't have a brickwall you may get stairsteps. Plus the link I posted clearly shows your statement is false. NOS DACs do exist that don't have an LPF.

I disagree. And not because I ‘think’ so. I am very familiar with the technology, theory and practice.