LPSU choices, new contender.....

[marce]

Cheers I will read up in detail later, just found the site and had a quick glance.

Resistor matching was always a problem with ladder DACs and thermal matching.

[Ralf11]

Glad you did not leave us, marce.

 

I am still curious about the typical noise levels of batteries, both thermal noise & electrochemical.

 

That's curious - not meant as an attack.

[sandyk]

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

He is forced to put down an opposing authority, because otherwise his argument can’t stand on its frail leg.

 

 

 That's laughable coming from somebody who claims that he can cure all digital audio's ills without needing to improve the source device, and refuses to accept what he calls "anecdotal "evidence from others, no matter how many report the same thing, even the results of DBTs , when that is exactly what he expects others to do when he makes his unsubstantiated claims without even any confirming reports from others or verification by way of DBT.

 

[sandyk]

8 hours ago, marce said:

Cheers I will read up in detail later, just found the site and had a quick glance.

Resistor matching was always a problem with ladder DACs and thermal matching.

 

An  earlier Marantz CD65 CD player that I had for many years ,had the ladder resistors replaced by 1% through hole types.

 The removed Surface Mount resistors in many cases varied by quite a bit more than 10% when measured.

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 That's laughable coming from somebody who claims that he can cure all digital audio's ills without needing to improve the source device, and refuses to accept what he calls "anecdotal "evidence from others, no matter how many report the same thing, even the results of DBTs , when that is exactly what he expects others to do when he makes his unsubstantiated claims without even any confirming reports from others or verification by way of DBT.

 

 

The run-on sentence contest was last month.

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Glad you did not leave us, marce.

 

I am still curious about the typical noise levels of batteries, both thermal noise & electrochemical.

 

That's curious - not meant as an attack.

 

 Even if you don't use a voltage regulator after a battery, it's a good idea to connect a bypass capacitor across the output at the device end of the cable/connecting wires. Don't forget too, that many batteries are inserted into carriers using cheap metal contacts, especially where you need several in series to achieve the desired voltage.Unfortunately, not all batteries have solder tabs.

 

 How many members haven't at some time found problems with the contacts in Remote controls ?

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

The run-on sentence contest was last month.

 

It's a shame that you never have anything positive to contribute to the forum.

[kumakuma]

24 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

It's a shame that you never have anything positive to contribute to the forum.

 

[Ralf11]

48 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 That's laughable coming from somebody who claims that he can cure all digital audio's ills without needing to improve the source device, and refuses to accept what he calls "anecdotal "evidence from others, no matter how many report the same thing, even the results of DBTs , when that is exactly what he expects others to do when he makes his unsubstantiated claims without even any confirming reports from others or verification by way of DBT.

 

 

"anecdotal" is clearly defined in science

 

his "claims" are not exceptional to anyone who has an understanding of digital electronics - they are exactly what digital is based on

 

Sandy, the onus is on the person making an unusual claim.  That person is you.  And I have never seen you report a DBT or SBT, merely give hearsay anecdotes about what other people said to you.

 

[sandyk]

43 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

And I have never seen you report a DBT or SBT, merely give hearsay anecdotes about what other people said to you.

 

 You have previously had access via PMs from me, to the series of reports in HFC Forum  reports by Martin Colloms where there were a series of 6 separate DBT sessions, ALL POSITIVE, regarding the Dire Straits- Love Over Gold tracks that I supplied., as well as the article in HiFi Critic magazine Vol.6 No.1.

The very knowledgeable Eloise even became a member of HFC forum to verify with Martin how the DBTs were performed.

Quote

New Zealand LOG Rips

Many enthusiasts will be aware that different ripping drives and software do sound different upon replay, despite working to a common and specified lossless format. A contentious test CDR known to HIFICRITIC has 23 different error-checked lossless rips from various unmodified computers, drives and ripping software, and nearly all of these can be subjectively differentiated from one another. (We are planning a report on some ripping software and its sound quality.) Furthermore, brief experiments with the UnitiServe's built-in audio grade ripper have revealed small differences in the rip quality resulting from changes in the power supply or the support environment.

Kethel had ripped three versions of the Private Investigations track using a ROM drive with various upgrade power supply arrangements, including a shunt regulated version based on a John Linsley Hood design. The files were EAC error checked, zipped, sent to the UK over the internet, unzipped, HDD stored in my computer, and EAC checked again to be sure they were all numerically the same. They were then copied onto a USB stick, and replayed via a Naim UnitiServe and MSB Platinum Signature /Diamond Power Base into an Audio Research Reference 5/Krell Evo 402e/Wilson Audio Sophia 3 analogue replay system, with accessories and supports to match. We made careful comparisons with eight repeats in all, judging as if we were playing the CD which we know very well; we felt the sound quality differences between the files were somewhat like changing CD players.

Rip 1: This gave a sound that was rather mid-fi CD in character. It might be considered perfectly good by those who haven't heard anything better, but for us it was not very communicative or involving. We decided to give this a 50% approximate sound quality score as a reference.

Rip 2: Sounded less dull, more detailed and more transparent than Rip 1, with more precise dynamics and better bass definition. There was now more musical expression with better clarity, listener involvement, and unquestionably higher resolution (I have experienced the master tapes). The score was now a comparative 75%, and the sound was considered very natural, accurate, with firmer clearer bass lines, greater depth and atmosphere. Instrumental decays were better extended into the deep silences.

Rip 3: Initially considered better still in some respects but not others, Rip 3 showed more convincing micro dynamic resolution in the far depth plane, and still more detail and focus. But it was not quite as relaxed, flowing and musically involving, and sounded slightly artificial and mannered with what we call a 'spotlit' character. In consequence the score dropped to around 65%. Kethel had believed that Rip 3 would be the best, as he had made further changes to the ripping drive supply. Whereas we had 'correctly' and reliably identified the improvements with Rip 2, with no foreknowledge of what changes had been made, we were now in disagreement over Rip 3. Subsequent further tests confirmed that we had been correct, and that Kethel had not completed the final modification to the optimum standard for this rip.

 

It is particularly interesting to try and understand the means by which the power supply quality for a ripper's drive mechanism can be transmitted as sound quality differences via error-proofed WAV music files. Computer people tell us: "this is not possible" and "we must be imagining it". However, we are merely reporting what we have found. Ripping hardware and programs simply cannot be taken for granted, even if and when the software reports 'zero errors'.

 

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hificritic/vol6_no1/audio_networking.htm

[Ralf11]

There was no description of a DBT or SBT - most of the pm was just gibberish too.

 

I assume this is the same pm you sent to many many other members, none of whom were impressed.

 

Are you sure that is the link you want?  It does nothing in terms of a test.

[sandyk]

19 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

There was no description of a DBT or SBT - most of the pm was just gibberish too.

 To be charitable, you are either a Liar or have long term memory problems.  You were given greater information from the results of the various HFC forum threads discussing the various listening sessions.

 You called me a Liar at the time, and are continuing to do so .At the time I invited Admin to check the contents of the various PMs that I sent you.

 I still have copies of some of the HFC forum discussions that can be provided on request via a PM, as HFC Forum is only accessible to members, but I will not be posting them here yet again, as they have already been posted previously on several occasions.

 The short report here from Enjoy the Music was only a summary of those various HFC threads.

 

 P.S.

 This is off topic and should be discussed elsewhere or via PMs

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 This is off topic and should be discussed elsewhere or via PMs

 

I don't think the OP is going to complain.

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I don't think the OP is going to complain.

No, the member with 3 different user names is no longer in a position to complain, but many long term members (including Admin)  who have already seen the same reports several times already ,will not appreciate them being posted again, and you are well aware of this.

 

 I still have copies of some of the original HFC forum discussions that can be provided on request via a PM

 

[Ralf11]

24 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 To be charitable, you are either a Liar or have long term memory problems.  You were given greater information from the results of the various HFC forum threads discussing the various listening sessions.

 You called me a Liar at the time, and are continuing to do so .At the time I invited Admin to check the contents of the various PMs that I sent you.

 I still have copies of some of the HFC forum discussions that can be provided on request via a PM, as HFC Forum is only accessible to members, but I will not be posting them here yet again, as they have already been posted previously on several occasions.

 The short report here from Enjoy the Music was only a summary of those various HFC threads.

 

 P.S.

 This is off topic and should be discussed elsewhere or via PMs

 

your outrageous BS is really over the top

 

There is NO METHODOLOGY described in this and there is NO statistical validity either:

 

Subject: sorry it took so long : gold and silver CD double tracks
 
HI Alex

not auditioned  for all tracks  , but randomly selected

scores in % 

1.  cd1gold 

a Dylan 1,2     2 clearer, firmer bass line, cleaner transients   +20%

7 ,8       7 better , more communicative, firmer definition with better timing by  15%

9, 10    10   better, clearer crisper better focus and staging  +18%

2.  cd1 silver  

1,2         2 better, but by a less  margin  8%

7,8          7 better           but also less  8%

etc

3.  Classical Gold  ( silver results  in brackets )

Mahler  1,2 :    2 is substantially, better, by  35%,  improved decay tails   percussion pitch

and reverb

9, 10  'lightning'  9  sounds  40% better than 10, with crisper bass 'thunder' , more drive and impact

4. Classical  silver results  9 better than 10 , but   differences less marked now  say 20%

5. Pop   Gold CD

  1, 2 Assent  :  2 better by 20 %,   more attack and reverb , better dynamics

  7,8 : 7 beats 8  slightly better dynamics , poor track  maybe 10% gain

 

My wife could hear the differences very easily too , I did a few blind comparisons and she had no problem scoring and describing subjective differences

 had things to do at this juncture.......................

thanks for arranging the trial,  should I send the discs back for others to test?

BTW great sounds from the 'good' tracks on the gold discs

You will let me know the basis for the differences....

[sandyk]

19 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

There is NO METHODOLOGY described in this:

 This is NOT from one of the HFC forum threads that you were privy to, and it is quite obvious to MOST normal people that it was from a personal communication.  You DELIBERATELY left this part out :

" From: Martin Colloms -
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 6:12 PM
To: Alex Kethel "

 

Thanks for posting it though, as it further illustrates what I have been reporting , but wouldn't  myself post again in this forum as it is against the wishes of Admin, as you also are well aware !!!

 

BYE !

[Ralf11]

Right, I left out his name to preserve HIS privacy.  SOmething YOU breached.

 

If you are referring to another pm state the date you sent it to me and I'll post that one.

 

The rest of your gibberish makes no sense - clarify s'il vous plait.

[sandyk]

19 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Right, I left out his name to preserve HIS privacy.  SOmething YOU breached.

 

If you are referring to another pm state the date you sent it to me and I'll post that one.

 

The rest of your gibberish makes no sense - clarify s'il vous plait.

There was no breach of privacy, as his email address wasn't there, and you ALREADY knew who I was talking about.

Go away, and try to get somebody else that you don't agree with warned or banned !

[Ralf11]

His name was there.

 

 

 

I have 2 other pm's from you, both titled "Another saved copy from HFC FDorum." but they are just copies of that same msg.

 

Why not point people to the HFC forum and they can read the results, and more importantly, the methodology there.

[marce]

13 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Glad you did not leave us, marce.

 

I am still curious about the typical noise levels of batteries, both thermal noise & electrochemical.

 

That's curious - not meant as an attack.

I'll dig out a long thread on DIYA where it was discussed in detail. All electronics has noise, to be honest how low do we need to go for audio... The main issues is charge level especially when supplying a pulsed circuit such as digital. And of course if you use some form of regulation and you have to at some point for digital circuits, these will probably add more noise than the battery, this noise will also interact with the battery, but all the noise adds up so whatever can be reduced always pays dividends. There are so many factors, layout being a critical one in keeping noise down and mitigating its effects, choice of supply...

But while we argue over the number of angels on a pin head, the rest of the electronics industry is moving on and combating the issues and moving towards higher speeds, less power, less noise, yet for some reason it isn't relevant to some! Yet when there are seminars on noise reduction, PDS design you see engineers, layout guys, test engineers, from all areas of electronics.

[jabbr]

10 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 That's laughable coming from somebody who claims that he can cure all digital audio's ills without needing to improve the source device,

 

We are talking about digital electronics, and this should be understood by anyone who has even a slight knowledge of the relevant physics. My “claim” is the standard accepted position. 

 

(The statement I made is that noise from the source digital stream can be reduced to an arbitrary level such that bits have no “memory” of where they came from.

 

Quote

 

and refuses to accept what he calls "anecdotal "evidence from others, no matter how many report the same thing, even the results of DBTs , when that is exactly what he expects others to do when he makes his unsubstantiated claims without even any confirming reports from others or verification by way of DBT.

 

 

My claims are hardly unsubstantiated. I am talking basic math & physics, really at an undergrad introductory level. Really old chap you ought to pick up a freshman textbook — this is basic — also read up on what “anecdotal” means.

[sandyk]

20 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

We are talking about digital electronics, and this should be understood by anyone who has even a slight knowledge of the relevant physics. My “claim” is the standard accepted position. 

 

 

My claims are hardly unsubstantiated. I am talking basic math & physics, really at an undergrad introductory level. Really old chap you ought to pick up a freshman textbook — this is basic — also read up on what “anecdotal” means.

Typical " Father knows best" type BS.

 Your claims ARE unsubstantiated, but apparently your rules don't  apply to E.Es ,ONLY those without appropriate qualifications.

 E.E.s are no more infallible than  anyone else .

 

[jabbr]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Typical " Father knows best" type BS.

 Your claims ARE unsubstantiated, but apparently your rules don't  apply to E.Es ,ONLY those without appropriate qualifications.

 E.E.s are no more infallible than  anyone else .

 

 

You don’t need to be an EE or have a degree, rather the ability to read & understand basic physics. Basic. I am not talking about qualifications nor appealing to authority, rather referencing the shared understanding about electronics. Try Khan Academy — it’s terrific.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, marce said:

But while we argue over the number of angels on a pin head,

 

Yeah, thus why I asked if you might have anything of interest to say about board layout, power component choices, etc., regarding Pavel's version of the DSC-1. It's a project of actual substance, and while not the only interesting one by a long shot, it has the advantage that there's no proprietary IP involved.

[Ralf11]

9 hours ago, marce said:

 

1. All electronics has noise, to be honest how low do we need to go for audio...

 

2. regulation and you have to at some point for digital circuits, these will probably add more noise than the battery, this noise will also interact with the battery,

 

3. but all the noise adds up so whatever can be reduced always pays dividends.

 

 

I hacked up your post into bullet points...

 

1. Yes, this has come up before - Conservatively -140 dB should be JUST FINE; realistically -120 dB would be great, and -80 is likely fine -- sounds can mask each other and this psychoacoustic finding is the basis for many compression schemes...

 

2. agreed, hence my query about the 2 battery noise sources

 

3. it does add but maybe not in any simple fashion - one would have to examine the 2 spectra and then weight by either psychoacoustic effects, or by effects on any electronics that are (claimed to be) affected by noise

 

I am interested in your thoughts on the above, on layout and in that article you mentioned.  Thx