Jump to content

PeterSt

Members
  • Content Count

    8163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

8 Followers

About PeterSt

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'll help a little: Depends on his size. And yours of course.
  2. What mansr doesn't mention is that DC offset also causes "clipping" at the side of where the voltage shifted to. Envision the below yellow wave as DC offset to the minus side of the voltage: The voltage "rails" does not extend to where the yellow wave wants to be (at the bottom side of it) and the voltage (= volume) stays at the level of the maximum voltage of the rails. And that thus only on one side (bottom), the other side (top) staying in-tact. The louder the volume, the more will but cut off from this one side. In the end this *is* bad for loudspeakers, because the swing of the diaphragm and magnet/coil driving it, never come at the resting midpoint (no power required there) and also can't sufficiently cool (itself). This is how the amplifier is equipped with a protection that prohibits too much DC offset. "Too much" can be anything the designer wants. But anyway when it kicks in (the relay cuts off the signal), there is no voltage (no signal) at all. The louder the volume (you set), the more the clipping occurs. So envision an excursion of the yellow wave which is half of what you see (the volume is way lower) and no clipping occurs and all is fine (but speakers will still suffer, because the DC Offset did not disappear). The idea of the culprit remains manrs's (he is definitely correct IMO).
  3. Ha ! Holy what was that ? 🤐 Well, welcome to your own thread and your own first poster ! For me it was quite challenging, knowing that a few weeks back I posted elsewhere something like "and we will see that despite the well thought design of the EtherREGEN an ET^2 cable will still make a difference. You could say that was against all odds, but knowing a little what forces are at play, the stipulation was not all over overdone. And there we are. Anyway, so yes, it makes a difference. Didn't you try an other config ? ... not that I advise it (first let break in the lot a bit), but I am also eager to know whether like with your Lush^2 the configs for the ET^2 with the EtherREGEN involved, makes a difference. And I hope I am not too naughty if I say that I never used an ET^2 (or other boutique Ethernet cable) myself. As a matter of fact I should be ordering one, with my own EtherREGEN due. Also funny: I have no clue as of yet what could be the difference in SQ. So I know what I did with / to the Lush^2, but the ET^2 is only a very best Ethernet cable with some shielding configurations. Nothing strange or out of spec or anything (OK, almost not ). But the largest bandwidth, so to speak (all theoretical and no figures to show). But merely: how (somehow) a connection like this can be under the influence of a cable - I must start thinking about it. As said, I expected it, but this is just general and merely because other people told me with all kinds of superlatives that it works out. Just the same I have no "feel" with it yet. PS: From a reliable source I heard that you forgot to have dinner.
  4. Ah, I see that the thread went on-topic for a couple of posts. Apologies I posted an OT as well. All right ... Indeed all is about "radiation" but radiation is is not just like that. It is about through air transmitted "voltage" which is captured elsewhere - an antenna. John Dyson pretty much tells the same but in better English. If you get yourself the proper meters, it is super super easy to see how this radiation is influenced by really ALL you can imagine. Be creative at it ! It really doesn't matter what you do, it influences. For example, also where you are yourself (possibly depending on your shoes and the carpet). How cables lie is the more obvious and how they do or do not connect to PE (Protective Earth) is again more obvious. No wait, was that obvious ? So yes. But measure it to see it. None of this I really see back in an FFT (24 bit 192KHz) at the DAC output. Possibly in the power rails somewhere, but I never tested/measured against this. Btw, the biggest problem with this radiation measurement is the localization of the receptor, or better, the possible harmless ones. Hard to explain in my English, but I mean: how to measure the magnetic influence of a transformer on e.g. the D/A chips; you can measure the radiation all right, but it is a most tough thing to measure "at" the places where you don't want the influence. At some stage I bought all the shielding materials I could think of (some are dangerous to work with because conductive) and I simply gave upon applying them. Oh, they should help, but you don't even know what to protect from which. Thus, about everything radiates, and about everything can be an antenna as well. Now THAT can or should be prohibited by proper design (I'd day) but it is still not measurable (by means I know of) and otherwise you should measure a 100+ locations. But that radiation is all over the place and that your audio gear creates it, is clear to me. And btw, it is not the gear as such (say that we forget about transformers, which can be shielded quite well) ... it is about the cables laying around. But for example, and in my own situation (never tested it elsewhere) ... unplug the USB cable at the DAC end and see what happens to the radiation figures at the end of that USB cable. And yes, I now, all logical when we think about it with some knowledge. But if I coincidentally look besides me, I see a phone connecting USB cable in a PC without the phone connected to it. That's how things go these days, and it is all over the place. So I know it is there, I (and customers) can control it by diverse switches in the PC and the DAC (for those having both) and the result of these switches is at least very well measurable (in the DAC output - mainly the noise level or flatness (spectrum) of it). The switches "combine" for an unknown situation (no-one has connected his/her gear in the same way, and otherwise dimmers and such are around). Btw, this is now about coupled-in noise merely, which is probably why it "measures" more easily in the DAC output - it is just more severe (and more distinct). One thing: it always comes along with the radiation levels (so observe the FFT and meterS at the same time). And just saying: if I try to find the best combination of everything (with radiation measurement) I am for about 2 hours trying combinations and then must give up because it is all to infinity. Luckily I don't use a preamp because it would multiply the number of permutations largely. And no, I never measured radiation for CPU activity. I guess it can be done, but I just never thought about that; It is useless if you see what the "connections" already imply. Personally I don't expect a CPU to really radiate (see Marce's elaboration(s)). But, we supposedly can incur for it by an open ended cable somewhere. Think of galvanic isolation and how that should work out for the worse. Right ? @marce ? I would say that an isolation barrier will create radiation. But somehow I could NOT prove that. So now somewhere my theories lack. I use it in the USB path and in the i2s path. Both are dead quiet (as far as again the "localization" of measurement can be applied - see earlier). Maybe it's a proof of all the voltage (current) being transferred and nothing leaks (and thus goes by air). That's all.
  5. That. But sadly for all the nay-sayers in this thread, it is even far more related to all the seemingly small stuff. Like the source. I have said it before - these days the PC is more important than the DAC. Now who is going to believe that for real eh ? And don't give me "then the DAC has a few issues" lines.
  6. OT: Leave out the AA filter, and you're way better off. Except for one or two photos out of 1000, if you know what you're doing.
  7. The current form of AI is really different from how it was in my old days. IMO these days it really is about smart recursive - and extremely powerful - programming techniques (and languages) which implies "smartness" from learning the environment. Btw, back in the days I worked for the company who was as far as I can tell the pioneer in computerized language translation. Let's say this failed back then (Esperanto as the center language). Now look what can be done today without real attention (from us consumers of it). It goes quite unnoticed.
  8. We actually can do something similar. As a moderator you should address this more neutrally. Just my opinion.
  9. @STC, can you please control this thread adequately - it is going nowhere suddenly. An hour ago all was still fine.
  10. Hey hey, watch your tone. Only @mansrs can be addressed like this legitimately.
×
×
  • Create New...