Jump to content
IGNORED

Investigation Into Effects Of PC load On DAC Analogue Output


Recommended Posts

Have you tried it with a regular PSU PC? I am just curious is all.

 

I am wondering if the DAC design could be down to USB chip used? Many of the SMAL and Toppings use the same USB chip set. I also wonder about some older DAC designs (I have one) like a TEAC UD-501.

 

Thank you for your measurements!

 

Just another Fun-Gi among us (I had to counter Savant 🤣 )

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment

10.1177_2041669515607153.pdf

59 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Since I can't measure myself the differences which can easily be heard by all those who are open to it, including myself, I don't care much.

All those who are not open to this and (think they can) measure, obviously won't see any "significant" difference.

And the definition of "significant' is indeed ...

 

 

That is not the point - @idiot_savantsaid it best. I think there are people that go overboard on both sides of the discussion. 

I think, in play, with this argument is called expectation bias. If you think you will hear something different, you will. Your brain is amazing for filling in all that. Hence, why the only way to truly determine if there really is noise or not is by DBT. But, that is for another discussion/thread.

 

We are here to talk about the current topic.

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment
3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

They are - trust me (no you won't).

So what is the reason for this thread again ?

 

Edit: this crossed with your post above.

 

Have you heard the old saying, 'Trust but Verify?'  If one can't measure it, is it really there? Again, it can be a part of expectation bias.

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Yes, we're working with 1990's jitter research. Dunn published his first paper in 1992 and the math is still correct. In other news, we are also using the Fourier theorem first published in 1882, scary, right? ;) 

 

Here's part of a conclusion from a 2005 study on jitter audibility (nano-seconds, not pico-seconds threshold). Note that there are a number of references to other studies that show similar results:

 

image.png.73257ea668ca840c99f36ec85b94e188.png

 

This was using music as the test material with the listener being able to chose their own track using random jitter. On specialized test signals with different types of jitter, as mentioned above, the threshold can be lower, but still in the nano-seconds range.

 

 

 

We also have to take into account what OUR ears and brain can audibly detect. I will give sight and computer monitors as an example (for gaming). With our eyes and biochemical wiring, the max frames per second we can discern is 60 fps. Anything over that, it seems it really doesn't matter. But people like getting the monitors that can handle over 60 fps. It kind of reminds me of the scene in the movie, 'This is Spinal Tap'. Again, expectation bias.....

 

image.jpeg.07dc80b1b166bf98b419e80f15115bd5.jpeg

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Are you serious? Noise, jitter, FN, RFI, EMI etc etc.

 

I think the point is, there wasn't any of that in these measurements. Not saying it can be but believe that music is so special that it can be interrupted by farts of unicorns - OK a little sarcasm here - the point is, I work on instrumentation that 100X more data than ever comes from music and also the changes in voltages we look at are very very small. A PPB, signal, from a Mass Spec, is around 0.0000005 V. If these instruments have no problems with noise etc. (and we are dealing with huge magnet systems also and vacuum pumps, etc) why should music have such issues?

 

Jitter was explained - it is an also-ran argument.

 

I am just asking an honest question.

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Summit said:

 

Sorry am I'm not interested and find it a waste of time to discuss with people who mean that samples have to be corrupted to affect sound quality. 

 

You are missing the point. You say that the data is corrupted by jitter. Measurement? or is it you hearing it and saying, 'AH, that's jitter'. I am not trying to be sarcastic at all, just trying to understand is all. You need to be more specific in your example. 

 

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment
12 hours ago, idiot_savant said:

@PeterSt - you say you’ve spent many years trying to optimise DACs and PCs/ software, which I believe. So, I’ve never seen you share these improvements/optimisations, apart from that you sell some kind of bespoke system? 
How annoying would you find it if a competitor came on here and just kept say “haha - I know this” repeatedly? 
I understand if you believe you’ve discovered some secret sauce, but just saying you have a secret sauce doesn’t make it fingerlicking good?

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

 

He is sounding like fas42, believing his own ideas w/o ever being able to prove it to others, with objective measurements.

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment
10 hours ago, manueljenkin said:

Just because it's not measurable with present state of apparatus doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Has happened in science many times, that a top level abstraction is shattered with a new discovery bringing life to older approaches that were earlier ridiculed.

 

I don't think anyone here has demonstrated lack of knowledge. You seem to be adamant that there is a magical fix down the line that can remove "all" aberrations introduced by noise from pc ground planes while the only measurements you have are mostly uncorrelated to real world audio signal performance, and some of the issues beyond that has already been demonstrated by John Swenson and others. 

 

Measurements are great, but conclusion is not. Objectivity is different from science. If required to be objective one can rank cows by their aerodynamic structure, but would it make any sense?

 

 

Two different arguments, but in the case of hearing, measurements are usually more sensitive than hearing, especially while using a proper DBT. Any other type of listening suffers from bias, period. That is how are brains were designed.

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment

Well, if I can use USB to collect all data from a MS, that will collect AMU (Atomic Mass Units) from 10 to 1000 AMU 60 times a second for 2 hours w/o any issues and also control the MS and the GC feeding it, I think USB can handle music. 

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment
1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

I wonder if there's a market for jitter-free GC columns...

 

Well, just saying that is a large amount of data and very small changes in the signal matter.

 

Well, PLOT columns are made of fused silica - while they will flex some, the are also prone to cracking. They are expensive too.

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Thank you for doing this. It is very educational.

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...