Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

Without interpolation filters, but you always need a reconstruction filter. 

All part of the same process.

[Indydan]

10 hours ago, firedog said:

Andy's should say: "Threw a hissy fit and quit just as he was about to be banned"

I like it!

 

MQA "enthusiast"                        Reason for no longer posting on CA

Peter Veth                                                          BANNED

WitchDoctor                                                      BANNED

Lee Scoggins                              SCARED of his BS being called out

Michael Lavorgna                      BANNED for telling someone to go fuck his mother

Peter Veth (as Peter Markus)  BANNED for acting like a dick and being an MQA shill

Jim Austin                                         Had a little bit of a meltdown on CA

Andy Schaub as Galileo365     Threw a hissy fit and quit just as he was about to be banned

[Jud]

21 minutes ago, mansr said:

All part of the same process.

 

True. I was referring to the need for an analog reconstruction filter even in "NOS" DACs.

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

True. I was referring to the need for an analog reconstruction filter even in "NOS" DACs.

You can of course omit an explicit filter and let your amp or speakers fill that role. Terrible idea, but some seem to like it.

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

You can of course omit an explicit filter and let your amp or speakers fill that role. Terrible idea, but some seem to like it.

 

At least one, perhaps more, of the Audio Note kits used a transformer as an analog filter, then was advertised as being without filters (the idea I suppose being to convince people there were no evil filters between them and the music).

[the_bat]

Not sure about the kits, but the factory product manuals talk about removing digital filters and using purely analogue filters - not about there being no filters at all.

[FredericV]

On 6/25/2018 at 7:46 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

 I thought Mr. Schaub was here to present some real information. However, you guys nailed it again. He clearly wasn't interested in real information and you spotted him from a mile away.

 

Some time ago I visited the Metrum Acoustics factory near Utrecht just before they moved to Eindhoven, where they build the PCB for their ladder DAC's, and where the units are assembled and tested.

I actually saw his measurement system, and from what the owner told me and what I saw on his scope, the latest article from Andy about R2R dacs makes a lot of mistakes:

https://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/the-ladder-dac-or-bits-aint-necessarily-bits-part-i.html

Andy writes: "since the output of a ladder DAC is already sinusoidal not square"
 

The analog output of an R2R dac is a staircase, not a perfect sine:

I observed a very similar plot when visiting the Metrum factory. While the steps actually get smaller when you increase the bit depth, they are never completely smooth as there is no reconstruction taking place.

[Brinkman Ship]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

 

Some time ago I visited the Metrum Acoustics factory near Utrecht just before they moved to Eindhoven, where they build the PCB for their ladder DAC's, and where the units are assembled and tested.

I actually saw his measurement system, and from what the owner told me and what I saw on his scope, the latest article from Andy about R2R dacs makes a lot of mistakes:

https://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/the-ladder-dac-or-bits-aint-necessarily-bits-part-i.html

Andy writes: "since the output of a ladder DAC is already sinusoidal not square"
 

The analog output of an R2R dac is a staircase, not a perfect sine:

I observed a very similar plot when visiting the Metrum factory. While the steps actually get smaller when you increase the bit depth, they are never completely smooth as there is no reconstruction taking place.

..and you are surprised he is clueless?

[Galileo365]

2 hours ago, FredericV said:

 

Some time ago I visited the Metrum Acoustics factory near Utrecht just before they moved to Eindhoven, where they build the PCB for their ladder DAC's, and where the units are assembled and tested.

I actually saw his measurement system, and from what the owner told me and what I saw on his scope, the latest article from Andy about R2R dacs makes a lot of mistakes:

https://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/the-ladder-dac-or-bits-aint-necessarily-bits-part-i.html

Andy writes: "since the output of a ladder DAC is already sinusoidal not square"
 

The analog output of an R2R dac is a staircase, not a perfect sine:

I observed a very similar plot when visiting the Metrum factory. While the steps actually get smaller when you increase the bit depth, they are never completely smooth as there is no reconstruction taking place.

 

Two things:

 

1. You’re quoting me out context. I say in the article itself that I’m referring to a “pure” ladder DAC or binary-weighted resistor DAC, not an R/2R DAC, which I say in the article is an inherently compromised design.

 

2. Despit that, your picture is of a sine way. It just has slightly longer than usual intervals between the points on the curve. A square looks like an exact crossection of a staircase.

 

it doesn’t matter to me, but you seem to be trying so hard to prove that I am wrong on almost everyhthing I write—for no practical purpose—that you must be really frightened of me. I suggest that you stop reading my blog because it’s making you so nervous and get some professional help.

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, Galileo365 said:

Two things:

 

1. You’re quoting me out context. I say in the article itself that I’m referring to a “pure” ladder DAC or binary-weighted resistor DAC, not an R/2R DAC, which I say in the article is an inherently compromised design.

 

2. Despit that, your picture is of a sine way. It just has slightly longer than usual intervals between the points on the curve. A square looks like an exact crossection of a staircase.

 

it doesn’t matter to me, but you seem to be trying so hard to prove that I am wrong on almost everyhthing I write—for no practical purpose—that you must be really frightened of me. I suggest that you stop reading my blog because it’s making you so nervous and get some professional help.

You are wrong in everything you write. I showed this DAC article to some engineer friends. One comment: "Oh god. The stupid - it burns."

[kumakuma]

23 minutes ago, Galileo365 said:

 

Two things:

 

1. You’re quoting me out context. I say in the article itself that I’m referring to a “pure” ladder DAC or binary-weighted resistor DAC, not an R/2R DAC, which I say in the article is an inherently compromised design.

 

2. Despit that, your picture is of a sine way. It just has slightly longer than usual intervals between the points on the curve. A square looks like an exact crossection of a staircase.

 

it doesn’t matter to me, but you seem to be trying so hard to prove that I am wrong on almost everyhthing I write—for no practical purpose—that you must be really frightened of me. I suggest that you stop reading my blog because it’s making you so nervous and get some professional help.

 

I thought you left:

 

On June 25, 2018 at 9:41 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Whoops. I missed that one. I guess @Indydan's list can now be updated because @Galileo365 is indeed Andy Schaub and he sent me the following email.

 

 

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

I thought you left:

I guess he's one of those people who rage quit for dramatic effect, then come quietly crawling back later so they can do it again.

[Ralf11]

maybe when he said he was going to leave he was speaking ironically

[Jud]

47 minutes ago, mansr said:

I guess he's one of those people who rage quit for dramatic effect, then come quietly crawling back later so they can do it again.

 

Couldn't "stick the flounce," as they say.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

I thought you left:

 

 

 

I'll have him know I am not uniformed! 

[MikeyFresh]

Shouldn't @Galileo365 be banned for having outright lied about his supposed lack of any industry affiliation?

 

On 6/25/2018 at 12:08 AM, Galileo365 said:

 

Quite sincerely and honestly, none whstsoever. I’m just trying to figure what it’s supposed to do, how it might work, and how to confirm that it does so. I would guess that most of those 21 posts involve defending myself for “asking stupid questions”.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

Shouldn't @Galileo365 be banned for having outright lied about his supposed lack of any industry affiliation?

Without a doubt.

[MikeyFresh]

17 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I'll have him know I am not uniformed! 

 

Yes, though we'll keep policing blatant MQA astroturfing, even in civilian clothes.

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, Galileo365 said:

you must be really frightened of me.

 

He isn't, no one here is.

 

2 hours ago, Galileo365 said:

get some professional help.

 

You've got no right to make personal attacks like that... or this:

 

   On 6/25/2018 at 6:41 AM,  Galileo365 said: 

If you had read my very next post, you would have seen a controlled experiment designed to asses that, but maybe the person who reads for you given your apparent illiteracy had to leave for the day.

Or this one especially:

 

   On 6/25/2018 at 6:41 AM,  Galileo365 said: 

Maybe he forgets to take his Thorazine when they let him out of the nuthouse for the weekend.

 

@The Computer Audiophile, aren't attacks like those above in concert with outright lying about his industry affiliation grounds for banning?

[mansr]

34 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

Yes, though we'll keep policing blatant MQA astroturfing, even in civilian clothes.

I'll polish my jackboots, just in case.

[Ralf11]

you can use them for the Drumfk visit

[mansr]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

you can use them for the Drumfk visit

No need. We have a Trump Baby blimp.

[Ralf11]

Yup - saw it on The Late Show (Colbert) - xlnt likeness!

 

?

[Brinkman Ship]

3 hours ago, Galileo365 said:

 

Two things:

 

1. You’re quoting me out context. I say in the article itself that I’m referring to a “pure” ladder DAC or binary-weighted resistor DAC, not an R/2R DAC, which I say in the article is an inherently compromised design.

 

2. Despit that, your picture is of a sine way. It just has slightly longer than usual intervals between the points on the curve. A square looks like an exact crossection of a staircase.

 

it doesn’t matter to me, but you seem to be trying so hard to prove that I am wrong on almost everyhthing I write—for no practical purpose—that you must be really frightened of me. I suggest that you stop reading my blog because it’s making you so nervous and get some professional help.

wait..didn't YOU try to prove that everything that was posted and written, that is confirmed factual technical information about MQA was wrong..?

 

for NO PRACTICAL PURPOSE???

 

I think it is clear who is frightened, based on your conduct. And for the record, everything you did write, WAS wrong.

[firedog]

Andy, give it up. The more you write, the more you show yourself to be sorely lacking in technical knowledge. The really sad part is that even when clearly shown to be wrong, you dig in and claim your statements that have been shown to be wrong are correct, instead of re-evaluating and learning from your mistakes. 

 

I haven’t read your DAC blog being referred to, but your MQA article was embarrassingly ill informed and you compounded your major errors by refusing to admit them when pointed out in the comments. 

You shouldn’t be writing any blog or article about audio that is technically based, as you aren’t competent to do so. If you want to write impressionistic type audio reviews, feel free. 

 

You also shouldn’t be allowed to post here, as you lied about your industry affiliation and engaged in nasty personal insults to other posters.