Jump to content

PeterSt

  • Content Count

    8336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PeterSt

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Manuel, I really don't need any review, so no worries. This is not for this thread either, so I like to stop this "XX" subject (you can proceed in the other thread - haha). Thanks !
  2. Ah, I never realized this was you. Back I read the first few posts and recall your thorough listening. Well done. I also recall that I did not want to point out XXHighEnd because it would take you an century to explore it well. Btw, it is free if you can bear the Quits between 6 and 30 minutes. Its largest features will be blocked in Demo mode, though. If you coincidentally have an XP machine, or something else which can still implement the first USB drivers which allowed 96KHz (I didn't try it myself since Vista), I'd have a 18/96 NOS DAC for you (costed 1800 euros back at th
  3. Then we may meet again. I'm afraid my spent time on this equals that of Mr Kunchur. The difference could be that I/we have products for attacking most (if not all) of those areas, including USB cables (LOL) which he doesn't address, as it seems (he forgot to examine digital protocols and noise implications elsewhere, I think).
  4. A transient of one sample at 1200Hz, 4 times upsampled, sinc filtered: Above you can already see how even at this slow rate (1200 times per second hence 0.8ms silence in between them) they start to run into each other which means the filter will soon choke. But what I wanted to show is this: Look at the box at the mouse pointer and see where this actually is (in the middle between the two pulses). Now people wanted "bit perfect" ? Hmm ... This is something like 10mVp-p !! (the not-bit-perfectness from XP was 1 bit dither). So why on e
  5. The key is in the IFFT. I won't say more because you may come up with it in a better way than I can at this moment. One important hint though: I have a real time FFT running in an FPGA (a crazy job). So much for your rest ... 😗
  6. One of those for the base, yes (㊙️ obviously 😏).
  7. A bit of something else (with same underlying subject): The normal filter only fully develops after in this case 63 samples (filter length). Thus where the original frequency has an immediate start (apart from the electrical pre-ringing), the filtered sound is sluggish. And this has nothing to do now with the transients we talked about so far ... Or has it ? Music is full with starts and stops of everything. Even flutes (sinus instrument) have a start.
  8. Oh, but Mr Kunchur is also into cables. Now nobody will believe him. Anyway, wow.
  9. Apologies - I only now see (and remember again) that this all sprung from Manuel indeed. But Don Hills made it a topic. OK. Something else, for fun and maybe offtopic but not sure: How can it be that I showed the Gibbs phenomenon at (IIRC) 14MHz, measured from the output from my DAC ? Mind you please, this was from a MHz sampler (ADC) thus not fully legal (which the plot shows and which I mentioned). Now ... 1/14,000,000 = 0,000-000-071-42x 71ns. Can we hear that (it *is* a frequency this time) ? No. Not sure where the math in the
  10. About that and mere to the OP's subject - maybe. Or let me put it differently (could be interesting): Where you persistently talk about a. a steep rise implying a high frequency in the file (my translation of your words) b. while we are able to perceive a transient and THUS will be able to perceive a high frequency (like 30KHz) (your own words) ... this is all putting on the wrong foot because nobody says or claims that. Do you never perceive the vinyl-like ticks ? ah, probably not, because you listen through a sinc filter. Would you look in the file f
  11. However, it is Manuel where I started responding to. And he (virtually) responded late to something Jud said, who responded to Archimago, who quoted form Mansr's work. As many threads this one went in a different direction than the OP intended (although it remains related). I don't see the problem ... (apart from you consistently working with your own subject (which indeed could be the OP's subject). It could be better to stick with the current subject instead of nobody understanding why you are so persistent in talking "frequency" while no frequency is in order si
  12. At least something is wrong there. I mean, you did not quote from Manuel (not your fault, I'm sure).
  13. Right. As long as we remember that your preferred filter *is*. (but mine may not be 😁) Hmm. A missing sample is just that, and its amplitude is as deep (!) as the amplitude of the adjacent (non-missing) samples. Why do I have the idea that you are working with a theoretical pile of data, while I talk about music data a.o. comprising of synthesizers ? You know, the Korgs and Yamahas and Rhodes and such. Do I ? ... I think I just spent a dozen of posts showing that ? OK, you want more of that. Here: O
  14. OffTopic, I suppose: I considered to add in that other thread that most unnecessary heat = waste, comes from voltage regulation which does not "match" well. I (by now) also know what a sport it is to make that matching in each and every occasion in a device (start with our LPSU in a Xeon-beast PC) ... so Alex, Yes ... Once I saw how to do these things, our NOS1 at first was 45C on the heatsinks of the Shunt PSU (btw coincidentally also 1A). After modification it is now only 25C (and still 1A !!) - ambient is 21 or so. Around me I see it happening that the most craz
  15. Hey, Mr Fake News ... Saw that ... 😆 (mentioned with fun/pun in mind)
×
×
  • Create New...