Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff)
Jun 23, 2015 at 9:33 AM Post #5,971 of 6,500
More taps != better filter.

Think of taps as the number of points at which the filter operates on the signal.  This means that, all else being equal, the more taps the steeper the cut.  The steeper the cut - again, all else being equal - the more ringing, which is one of the distortions filter designers generally try to avoid.

So good filter design must take into account this potential disadvantage of an increased number of taps.


Your answer makes sense ... but mr Watts seems to disagree completely (at least that's what I understood from the big quote posted here, more taps= much better sound). Don't have the time or enough curiosity to dive into that kind of math & acoustics so color me confused.

Yeah, especially you have 3072 cuda cores from a Single Nvidia Titan X (Maxwell). If you do a 4x SLI setup, and you will have 12288 cores to design your billion tap filters.


I am pretty sure that it can be done with less that 4xSLI cards. Especially since they dont need a generic CUDA-core but one very specific chip that just implements a single algorithm. They already have good expertise with custom FPGA's and since they sell $5K+ DACs, the budget should be there too.
Sounds like something for their next DAC ... the Chord Threesome DAC ... one Dave, two Chordettes and some 'special sauce' :D
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 9:53 AM Post #5,972 of 6,500
Your answer makes sense ... but mr Watts seems to disagree completely (at least that's what I understood from the big quote posted here, more taps= much better sound). Don't have the time or enough curiosity to dive into that kind of math & acoustics so color me confused.

 
More taps can be good, because they allow for more sophisticated filters.  But it's not an unrestricted, "more taps equal better filter forever and ever amen" type of thing.  There's the potential disadvantage that more taps will tend to mean a sharper cut and thus more ringing, so that has to be accounted for in good filter design.
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 10:09 AM Post #5,973 of 6,500
Although I found out the $2 MB chip inside Dell XPS 9100 is extremely clear and detailed, but it is just an exception.
All OTHER PC's sound card I have tried are not good. Either noisy, or blurred. Like the Creative chips, it is very blurred. They charged a premium for loaded features, but loaded leads to less transparency.

Only talking about clearness and transparency. The $2 MB chip inside Dell XPS 9100 is nothing musical or enjoyable.

I guess the reason is the same for desktop DACs as well: more components, larger the board => harder to make it transparent. All DACs from $100 to $1xxx I have tried, are not as clear and detailed as the $2 simple sound system. Small, less components => easy to make it transparent. Only after > $2000 level, desktop DAC start to be able to compete with this $2 system.


Most probably, all PCs/laptops older than 1-2 years do sound quite bad (and I guess that's what >90% of people use or have heard). Also agreed about the creative cards.

But that "extremely clear and detailed" chip you are mentioning is pretty much what I expect from a DAC. I want a DAC to deliver 100% neutral sound and maybe also a clear, 3D soundstage (although the soundstage is not exactly/entirely a DAC's responsibility). I want the exact same (neutrality) from my source and amp.
If I want to add that musical/enjoyable 'thingie' I'll try with speakers/HPs or maybe a tube preamp. Preamps & transducers are the components who add the most 'color' to the sound anyway and have the worse THN/etc measurements in any stereo chain ... all other components could be almost 100% transparent nowadays, no need to have any coloration from them.



P.S.
I am wondering if that so called "treble harshness" of the Sigma-Delta chips isn't just simple neutrality. I remember I read somewhere that a perfectly linear-to-20kHz component would sound quite harsh.
The very neutral/linear O2 fits that theory, it's highs aren't the most 'musical'. Also the most linear speaker I ever heard (and owned) did sometimes sound a bit too strong in the upper treble area ... e.g. the noisy-clocks intro of Pink Floyd's Time was not particularly enjoyable.

judmarc
guess it's more clear now ... but in audioland ppl dont even agree 100% with mathematically proven theorems like Shannon's so I'll be still graying around those taps for a while :)
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 10:29 AM Post #5,974 of 6,500
What I heard comparing the resonessence invicta to the yggdrasil was treble (hi hats) sounding like ch-ch-ch-ch on the invicta to being a resolved tst-tss-tss-tst on the yggdrasil. Going back to cheaper DACs, hi-hats are even less resolved sounding. I also notice playing records that the percussion has a different sound than playing FLACs through a cheap DAC. It can sound more resolved and "natural", whereas I suppose the DAC sound to me has something like a compression going on. Just my opinion and after hearing the yggdrasil, I can't I unhear the difference.
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 11:28 AM Post #5,976 of 6,500
What I heard comparing the resonessence invicta to the yggdrasil was treble (hi hats) sounding like ch-ch-ch-ch on the invicta to being a resolved tst-tss-tss-tst on the yggdrasil. Going back to cheaper DACs, hi-hats are even less resolved sounding. I also notice playing records that the percussion has a different sound than playing FLACs through a cheap DAC. It can sound more resolved and "natural", whereas I suppose the DAC sound to me has something like a compression going on. Just my opinion and after hearing the yggdrasil, I can't I unhear the difference.

 
Invicta was strange. Full bodied tone, but with a strident and sharp treble timbre.
 
 
P.S.
I am wondering if that so called "treble harshness" of the Sigma-Delta chips isn't just simple neutrality. I remember I read somewhere that a perfectly linear-to-20kHz component would sound quite harsh.
The very neutral/linear O2 fits that theory, it's highs aren't the most 'musical'. 
 

You read wrong. Lots of non-harsh sounding gear has bandwidth that fully extends past 20kHz. Also, you also can eliminate roll-off in some DACs by using hires or upsampled source material.
 
O2 / nwavguy isn't the only person in the world with a 'scope and makes neutral/linear amps. The reason the O2 doesn't sound as good as it could have been is because he went chasing after measurements instead of actually listening.
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM Post #5,978 of 6,500
You read wrong. Lots of non-harsh sounding gear has bandwidth that fully extends past 20kHz. Also, you also can eliminate roll-off in some DACs by using hires or upsampled source material.

O2 / nwavguy isn't the only person in the world with a 'scope and makes neutral/linear amps. The reason the O2 doesn't sound as good as it could have been is because he went chasing after measurements instead of actually listening.

Could very well be wrong, I was just thinkin out loud. But there are quite a few empiricals that seem to fit my "linear is quite sharp" hypothesis. Most studio speakers will fit it too and those are known for being very neutral/linear. (and of course nwavdude is not the only builder of neutral components, it was just a sample.)

But I still wonder, what exactly makes a well built and neutral/linear component sound harsh !? The only theoretical explanation I know is about the odd harmonics sounding harsh (as opposed to the pleasing even ones) ... and apparently a lot of negative-feedback may produce lots of those. That could very well be the O2's case. But modern DACs do not produce much of any harmonics ... at least not in the audible range (I'd put that at -100, -110dB and most DACs are below that already).
Any other ideas?
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 12:18 PM Post #5,979 of 6,500
Hugo and Dave don't use any kind of DAC chip, the analogue conversion is discrete using pulse array. The key benefit of pulse array - something I have not seen any other DAC technology achieve at all - is an analogue type distortion characteristic. By this I mean, as the signal gets smaller, the distortion gets smaller too. Indeed, I have posted before about Hugo's small signal performance - once you get to below -20 dBFS distortion disappears - no enharmonic, no harmonic distortion, and no noise floor modulation as the signal gets smaller. With Dave, it has even more remarkable performance - a noise floor that is measured at -180dB and is completely unchanged from 2.5v RMS output to no signal at all. And the benefit of an analogue character? Much smoother and more natural sound quality, with much better instrument separation and focus. Of course, some people like the sound of digital hardness - the aggression gets superficially confused with detail resolution - but it quickly tires with listening fatigue, and poor timbre variation, as all instruments sound hard, etched and up front. But if you like that sound, then fine, but its not for me.

On the digital filter front - original samples getting modified - actually the vast majority of FIR digital filters retain untouched the original samples, as they are known as half band filters. In this case, the coefficients are arranged so that one set is zero with one coefficient being 1, so the original sample is returned unchanged. The other set being used to create the new interpolated value. The key benefit of half band filters is that the computation is much easier, as nearly half the coefficients are zero, plus the filter can be folded so that the number of multiplications is a quarter of a non half band filter. When designing an audio DAC ASIC, the key part in terms of gate count is the multiplier, so reducing this gives a substantial improvement in die size, and hence cost. So traditional digital filters use a cascade of half band filters, each half band filter doubles up the oversampling - so a cascade of 3 half band filters will give you an 8 times over-sampled signal, with one sample being the unmodified original data. You can tell if the filter is like this as at FS/2 (22.05 kHz for CD) the attenuation is -6dB. The filters that are not like this are so called apodising filters, and my filter the WTA filter.

Going back eighteen years ago to the late 90's I was developing my own FIR filter using FPGA's. Initially, I was interested in increasing the FIR filter tap length as I knew from the mathematics of sampling theory that timing errors were reduced with increasing tap length. So the first test was to use half band Kaiser filters - going from 256 taps to 2048 taps gave an enormous sound quality improvement, so I had confirmed that tap length was indeed important subjectively. But at this point I was stuck; I knew that an infinite tap length filter with a sinc impulse response would return the original un-sampled signal perfectly - but the sinc function using only 16 bit accurate coefficients needs 1M tap FIR filter - and that would never happen, certainly not with 90's technology. So was it possible to improve the timing accuracy without using impossible tap lengths? After a lot of thinking and research, I thought there was a way - but it meant using a non half band filter, which would mean that the original sampled data would be modified. This was a big intellectual stumbling block - how can changing the original data be a good thing? But the trouble with audio is that neat simplistic ideas or preconceptions get in the way. Reality is always different, and reality can only be evaluated by a careful AB listening test. So I went ahead on this idea, and listened to the first WTA filter algorithm - and indeed it made a massive improvement in SQ - a 256 tap WTA sounded much better than 2048 tap half band Kaiser, even though the data is being modified. Why is this? The job of a DAC is NOT to reproduce the data it is given, but to reproduce the analogue signal before it is sampled. The WTA filter reconstructs the timing of the original transients much more accurately than using half band filters or filters that preserve the original data and it is timing of transients that is the most important SQ aspect.

So the moral of the tale? Don't let a simplistic technical story get in the way of enjoying music!

Rob


I'm not sure what "pulse array" means, and never heard of "enharmonic distortion" and "noise floor modulation". Maybe he means quantization noise modulation? and I guess enharmonic means some sort of pitch error? Who knows. Also, in almost all cases, as signal gets smaller, non-linear distortion gets smaller. This is the case with most equipment, not just Chord stuff. If what Rob means is noise floor due to perhaps quantization, that is more a function of signal statistics and topology.

As far as filters, I have no idea what WTA does but it's seems pretty clear it's not a half-band filter. It is interesting that a 1M tap 16-bit coefficient sinc filter is seen in a possitive light, because when sampled at Nyquist, and with the appropriate window, that is a half-band filter. It is also pretty clear the WTA filter is not a linear phase filter, which IMO makes the WTA filter suboptimal in some ways. So it seems we know what the WTA filter is not, but that leaves us with a large set of random posibilities.

I would not be concerned about the pre ringing of a filter as that only affects transcient response (like a few ms before the song starts playing) and delay. But I would be concerned of a very large filter if the number of bits is not sufficient to carry the arithmetic with out incurring into quantization issues.

Also, I don't get this "timing error" issue Rob keeps alluding to. If he is talking about jitter then some of Chord's products didn't seem to do so well on the bench:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-electronics-dac64-da-processor-measurements-part-2

If he is talking about square waves perfectly straight and fast transitions, then more than timing errors we maybe talking about ultrasonic bandwidth limitations. Which are ultrasonic.

---

So all in all, from what I can tell, all that write up amounts to saying is that the Chord uses a very large, possibly numerically challenged, non-linear phase FIR filter (which may or may not be minimal phase). And the topology solves "enharmonic distortion" and "noise floor modulation", whatever that means (for "small" signals), cuz that's how it sounds to Rob.

Would love to see a more straight explanation of what WTA does, and less of this "pulse array" "cascade of half band filters" "Kaiser" preceived verbal wanking business.
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 12:25 PM Post #5,980 of 6,500
Could very well be wrong, I was just thinkin out loud. But there are quite a few empiricals that seem to fit my "linear is quite sharp" hypothesis. Most studio speakers will fit it too and those are known for being very neutral/linear. (and of course nwavdude is not the only builder of neutral components, it was just a sample.)

But I still wonder, what exactly makes a well built and neutral/linear component sound harsh !? The only theoretical explanation I know is about the odd harmonics sounding harsh (as opposed to the pleasing even ones) ... and apparently a lot of negative-feedback may produce lots of those. That could very well be the O2's case. But modern DACs do not produce much of any harmonics ... at least not in the audible range (I'd put that at -100, -110dB and most DACs are below that already).
Any other ideas?


Just a thought, Prot how often do to get out to hear un amplified music?
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 12:42 PM Post #5,981 of 6,500
Just a thought, Prot how often do to get out to hear un amplified music?


last time a few weeks ago ... small venue and some acoustic, jazzy music. But not as often as I'd wish ... and nowadays it is quite hard to find any un-amplified performance. Also, the amplified ones are so bad sometimes that it makes me wish I stayed home. E.g. a few months ago a dumb-deaf audio-engineer did set up a Gregorian-Chants concert same as a Metallica one: huge bass and generally very loud instrumentation-track ... it just drowned the beautiful choir-voices which should have been the star of the show. It was much worse than listening to a CD or even the lousiest mp3s.

Anyway, now that I answered ... what was your point?
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 1:16 PM Post #5,982 of 6,500
Just that live, non-amplified music can sound "rolled off" compared to the harsh, glaring treble you were speaking about in your posts. Real music usually doesn't have a hot treble. Some recordings of course do have that artifact, but a great DAC, amp, speaker, headphone should convey the tone, dimensionality, naturalness of un-amplified music, no?
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 1:17 PM Post #5,983 of 6,500
But there are quite a few empiricals that seem to fit my "linear is quite sharp" hypothesis.

 
You need to be more specific on the empiricals. What studio speakers? How where they measured? At the listening position? At the "standard" 1 meter with mic leveled with the tweeter in an anechoic chamber? What is the response off-angle? How are the speakers setup / where they setup properly? How were the monitors intended to be used? How were the monitors loaded, i.e. whole-space, half-space, quarter space, and those with adjustable baffle step correction, where they set to correct boundary loading.
 
 
Any other ideas?
 

For DACs, crap in ultrasonic region before the analog filter. For amps, poor slew rate and peaks in ultrasonic region. No rule, just tendencies.
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 1:20 PM Post #5,984 of 6,500
Firstly, some history. I first started getting involved in designing DAC's in 1989, when I heard Phillips Bitstream DAC the SAA7320. Compared to multi-bit DAC's at the time, it was a revelation - digital was starting to sound smooth and refined. Now these DACs were PDM types - that is 1 bit with 256 times oversampling - technically exactly the same as DSD but running at 256 times not 64. Now I started with these DAC's, made improvements, and I realised that the noise shapers were limiting resolution, so I started using multiple chips each with their own dither, to improve resolution. Noise shapers convert PCM to lower resolution data like 1 bit DSD. Also I found that the out of band noise from these noise shapers were overloading the analogue sections, giving noise floor modulation, making it sound harder. Also the DAC's were innately very sensitive to clock jitter. To try to solve these problems I designed the PDM1024, which had multiple noise shapers (improve resolution) and digital filtering (delay and add) to help with the jitter sensitivity and the out of band noise problems. Now the PDM1024 (early 90's now) gave a big step forward, but I could not resolve all of these problems. So I started developing Pulse Array, which was a multi-bit noise shape technology. To solve the noise shaper resolution problems, it runs at 2048 FS and is 5th order or better. This theoretically approaches 90dB more noise shaper resolution than PDM at 256 FS, and 150 dB more resolution than DSD 64. The Pulse Array modulation scheme also has the benefit in that it has much lower master clock jitter sensitivity than native DSD/PDM and, more importantly, has no jitter induced noise that is signal dependent as it is a constant clocking scheme - so it has no innate noise floor modulation. Also, by running at 2048 FS, the noise shaper noise at 1MHz is much lower - about 1000 times lower noise than usual DAC's. This means a simple analogue single stage with minimal filtering, so you get much more transparency. Also, the analogue active section has a much easier time, as RF induced noise floor modulation is fundamentally easier.

Now this happened in 1995. At the same time, silicon DAC designers were on a similar path - moving performance DAC's to multi-level noise shaping, away from single bit. At this time DSD started, which was moving in the opposite direction - instead of 256 FS it had reduced to 64 FS, simply because of data rate limitations on optical disks. Now as I have talked about in earlier posts, DSD has a major benefit - it does not have the big timing problems of PCM - but it suffers from much poorer resolution, and creates more distortion and noise than PCM. Using the WTA filter addresses (I won't say eliminates the timing issue because I think we need more taps than today to do that) the timing problems of PCM, giving you the potential of better resolution from PCM and overall better sound.  

      


It seems that the chord pulse array is a 2048FS 5th order multi bit pulse density modulation with dither and noise shaping,
 
Jun 23, 2015 at 2:14 PM Post #5,985 of 6,500
You need to be more specific on the empiricals. What studio speakers? How where they measured? At the listening position? At the "standard" 1 meter with mic leveled with the tweeter in an anechoic chamber? What is the response off-angle? How are the speakers setup / where they setup properly? How were the monitors intended to be used? How were the monitors loaded, i.e. whole-space, half-space, quarter space, and those with adjustable baffle step correction, where they set to correct boundary loading.


For DACs, crap in ultrasonic region before the analog filter. For amps, poor slew rate and peaks in ultrasonic region. No rule, just tendencies.


You're asking a bit much, not a pro-studio engineer. Saw some of those though (nothing of say abbey road size & prestige) and my general impression was: very detailed and clear sound but not a relaxing listening space. Some studio speaker samples: k+h o300-400, focal (biggest 3way ones), barefoot, pmc (dont remember models, pretty big & shinny new ones). I did not measure anything but the sound was quite linear, no obviously accentuated freqs and all had some sort of room treats.
Their components did sound quite linear/neutral but also kinda shrill for my ears. Same for many ultra highend (and suposedly very neutral) hifi setups in various shops.

As about the slewrate, I think most modern amps (at least the ss kind) are linear to 50khz or more .. even "lousy" receivers are. Doubt that is a big issue nowadays. A poor slew rate would prolly also defeat the linear to 20khz rule .. same about the peaks you mentioned.

So, I think I still have a Q. Other than odd order harmonics why would a linear-to-20k component sound shrill?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top