[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xuan87 /img/forum/go_quote.gif i'm glad such a chip exists, but is its usage in the protector a feasible idea?

It would seem not to be.

se

 

[Beefy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xuan87 /img/forum/go_quote.gif i'm glad such a chip exists, but is its usage in the protector a feasible idea?

Well, the question still remains, as to what was used in the Shadow? And why it can't be used here?

 

[Ray Samuels]

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvdunhill /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ray: Steve was directly challenging your statement that a high-end consumer audio chip does not exist that operates from a dual supply and can be direct coupled. The PGA2320 achieves all three of these things. The point wasn't whether or not this could be achieved in an ultra portable, but whether or not something like this chip even exists, which you said did not.

I should have stated my statement much carefully when saying that as I am looking at the whole picture, voltage, current consumption, other drivers needed to operate it, space available & so on, all that makes it the wrong choice for the Protector which runs on + - 2 volts or less. There are other chips that require another dedicated digital power supply & so on.
Ray Samuels

 

[xuan87]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beefy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, the question still remains, as to what was used in the Shadow? And why it can't be used here?

i believe this answers your 2nd question:

Most of the digital volume controls are designed with a single power supply in mind. That means in order to design an amp, you have to implement INPUT & OUTPUT capacitors in the signal path. Doing that means the sound is no longer pure with out colorations. I do not like to put caps in the signal path of any of my amps. I had talked to many technical engineers of many manufacturers of digital volume controls, non of them ever heard of very sensative in ear monitors, as to few who replied that these digital volume controls were not designed for a critical listening specially with IEMs. They were designed for cars, computers & other portable devises where regular phones were used & a single power was the main supply. The best design is done when a dual power supply is implemented thus the need for caps in the signal path is no longer an issue.
Ray Samuels


thus probably the reason why ray didn't use a digital volume control was not because he doesn't want to, but because there isn't one available.

if one of us is able to introduce ray to a suitable digital volume control ( like what Koyaan I. Sqatsi tried to do, but unfortunately, his recommendation wasn't usable) i'm sure ray will be more than happy to test it out and see what the outcome is.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Well, you could use a single supply volume control with a three channel configuration. That would give you a balanced output and wouldn't require coupling caps.

se

 

[luvdunhill]

Thank you Ray. Hyperbole unfortunately sets me off in ways it probably shouldn't.

Steve, agreed. It is possible to do true balanced on a 3 pin TRS connector. However, the problem is messaging. For people around here at Head-Fi especially, balanced must be >4-pin.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvdunhill /img/forum/go_quote.gif Steve, agreed. It is possible to do true balanced on a 3 pin TRS connector. However, the problem is messaging. For people around here at Head-Fi especially, balanced must be >4-pin.

That's easy. Just use four pins.

se

 

[Beefy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xuan87 /img/forum/go_quote.gif i believe this answers your 2nd question:

You're missing the point. Ray already sells a portable amp with a digital volume control, called the Shadow. I just want to know why that can't - or isn't - used here. Presumably the same rules apply regarding the power supply,

It seems a bit odd that Ray would sell a portable product with a digital volume control and market it as a premium solution without caps in the signal path, then turn around and say that a good digital volume can't be implemented in a portable product.

 

[Ray Samuels]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beefy /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're missing the point. Ray already sells a portable amp with a digital volume control, called the Shadow. I just want to know why that can't - or isn't - used here. Presumably the same rules apply regarding the power supply, It seems a bit odd that Ray would sell a portable product with a digital volume control and market it as a premium solution without caps in the signal path, then turn around and say that a good digital volume can't be implemented in a portable product.

Hi Beefy... The digital volume control used in the Shadow has 64 clicks or steps. the lowest one is not mute but has very low level of sound, at gain of three, the Shadow functions very well with that gain, as the volume is low enough not to bother you at all with IEMs. To implement it in the Protector, which has gain of 2, 5 & 11, the first setting on this digital volume control might be loud if it happens gain of 11 has been chosen with IEMs.
Ray Samuels

 

[xuan87]

if you used the digital volume control in the Protector on a gain of lets say.... 2, how will the sound compare to the Protector with the analog volume control?

 

[ety0820]

Hi Ray.
the discussion of volume control is too difficult for me.....

So ,I have basic question. How big is the size of the protecter?? I am very interested in that point!

 

[immtbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ety0820 /img/forum/go_quote.gif but i have question.Can single end cable transformed to balanced cable by using adapter??

IMO, the only way to do this, would be by using interpolation. Just like a 1080i, is really a 720p, that uses software, to "interpolate" what it thinks should be 1080p. It would never be true balanced, and it could truly never sound as good, if it could even be done at all.
Sort of like the difference between Dolby Pro Logic and true Dolby Digital. It's just a "pretend" way to make fake 5 channel out of true 2 channel. I might be wrong.

The ultimate balanced portable, is to have the source, dac and amplification, balanced from beginning to end. But Ray is really onto something here, and like the napkin, might change the way that we listen to portable music for years to come. It has to get started somewhere.
Unfortunately, the large corporations that make most of our sources, Apple, Sony, etc. know, that we are a very small segment and mass producing Nanos and iPod earbuds will sell by the millions, the profit margin is huge, and that's what it's all about.
Hence, the end of the R-10/Orpheus era. We are going too have to do it ourselves. Sennheiser is the only one who lately, made a genuine effort to come out with a new state of the art headphone, sans the ED8's, AD7000's and Omega II's.

 

[wsilvio]

 

[Ray Samuels]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ety0820 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Ray. the discussion of volume control is too difficult for me..... So ,I have basic question. How big is the size of the protecter?? I am very interested in that point!

Please see the pictures on the first page, you can see the dimensions of both length & width.
Cheers.
Ray Samuels

 

[xuan87]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Samuels /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Beefy... The digital volume control used in the Shadow has 64 clicks or steps. the lowest one is not mute but has very low level of sound, at gain of three, the Shadow functions very well with that gain, as the volume is low enough not to bother you at all with IEMs. To implement it in the Protector, which has gain of 2, 5 & 11, the first setting on this digital volume control might be loud if it happens gain of 11 has been chosen with IEMs. Ray Samuels

i've been thinking, but this might not be a problem ( well not with me anyway) because i definitely won't be using a gain of 11 if i'm using my iems. though of course, there is a risk of me accidentally flipping the gain switch, it is a risk i'm willing to take if implementing the digital volume control gives a better sound.

if there is other reasons why you can't use the digital volume control, then you can ignore this post.