Re: [SurroundSound] Re: Converting Multichannel files to DTS?

Andrej

No need to be arsey. It's very difficult to be sound as constructive my end on a mobile phone. I'll try the 12S when I get back home. In fact I was thinking about something similar the other week and also getting a scope on it. 

Wow 20 years is actually more like 30, "and then you find ten years have got behind you...."

Fake news:

Propaganda caused by deliberate misinformation 

Tell me how many commercial pieces of kit do not modify the audio signal by means of DSP.

I still stand by what I was getting at, I have not heard music recorded DSD that has demonstrated any significant differences between PDM and PCM at higher sampling rates Moreover when most folks have compared the two, we get back to choices of manufacturer. Which is a bit like cars, is a BMW better than an Audi? It is if I bought it.....lol (not that I have either btw)

By all means challenge, no doubt you can find me that piece of music, I am hoping you can as I am open minded about it all, however my age has given me natural cynicism, as we have heard it all before.

Finally I am seriously interested into why people can or cannot hear lower rate lossless defects, such as redbook, when what we are talking about is rates well above this standard.

On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 at 09:11, Andrej Falout <andrej@falout.org> wrote:

On Thursday, 9 August 2018 17:55:33 UTC+12, lokkerman wrote:

Sorry but you have read too many promotions here.

I also red many white papers, patent filings, chip implementation and prototyping papers, designed and constructed 4 DACs (that are in production ... or where), recorded many ...ummm... recordings, and used far to much audio gear for my own sanity.

But for reading promotions, I do apologize sincerely. I see the error of my ways.

 

I think you need to investigate the difference between PDM and PCM.

Wow. Thanks for a hint. Feeling very humbled right there.

 

  You need to understand the difference between a ladder DAC and a DSD DAC (delta sigma) internally. Also just investigate how many DSD ADC's and DACs are out there until a year ago. 

I'll go in my storage room and report back. Are you serious?

 

It may have been technically simpler to make a DSD DAC 20 years ago when Philips' came up with the idea as a cheap way to get higher bandwidth/bit rates without the overhead but since then we have had years of really accurate good quality ladder dacs.

I disagree entirely. Minus the Philips intention part, but including the "20 years ago" part (Hint: it was 1998 20 years ago).

Except for some Sony and Mitsubishi early works that sounded good despite being technically horrible, I did not hear a DAC I would call accurate until around 2005.

 

Try reconstructing a DSD signal without a filter and hear what you get. noise.

Step 1 - find i2S input pin on DAC chip

Step 2 - locate a place on DAC board where i2S signal is exposed

Step 3 - attach a plain wire to the DAC chassis (or appropriate grounding point on the board)

Step 4 - connect i2S signal point to low impedance headphones signal pin, and grounding wire from #3 to the headphones ground pin

Step 5 - play NATIVE (eg. not DoP) DSD signal to your DAC (USB will always end up going trough i2S)

Step 6 - Listen carefully. Tell us what you heard.

 

 

As for a Korg, a typical headphone DAC, DAC100m uses a cirrus logic  cs4398  delta sigma DAC Which has a data sheet s/n/r of 120dB yet this little beast only returns 105. That doesn't imply a shorter signal path but less quality on the output and digital tinkering on the innards.(inside) meaning the sound the designer wants you to hear and not the native sound.

I'll see if I can get someone from Korg to respond to that. To avoid perpetuating fake news ... and to entertain them a bit.

 

The problem here is that PR is the fake news of the music world and with digital it is so easy to adjust certain parameters without unduly affecting the specifications. 

Fake news argument, as used by some very prominent (ab)users, is intended to disqualify. Disqualification is intended to end any meaningful discussion and render arguments obsolete.

Was that your intention?

In any case - I apologize to the OP for the direction this exchange and thread had taken based on my side remark. My only intention for posting response anyway, is to prevent creating perception that opinions expressed by some are left unopposed - and in this way add validity to them.

Ill go sit in a corner now and be quiet.

A.

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.