Did AKM make any R2R chip before? If yes, could you let me know which one? I am very interested to find out. Thanks.
I don't think it's AKM. It's more like the Ti PCM1704 or TDA1541 or AD1865N-K chips
Did AKM make any R2R chip before? If yes, could you let me know which one? I am very interested to find out. Thanks.
Cool, thanks for your reply. I was doing some research on vintage DAC chips too. That's what I found out too. I was wondering if I miss any one from AKM.I don't think it's AKM. It's more like the Ti PCM1704 or TDA1541 or AD1865N-K chips
"Your argument seems to be centred around the premise that you hear something different with hi res audio so you are digging deeper to understand why." <=== Yes and no.
Yes: I hear the difference between Hi-Res and CD <== not an argument for our discussion.
No: I was not asking why
"My question was how old are you ?" <=== I bought and listened to cassette and LP in the past
"Additionally, do you have any other day to day examples of your hearing ability outside of audio that might help demonstrate that your hearing extends beyond scientific knowledge ?" <=== No, I believe that I am just a regular guy. I don't think I can hear 20kHz or higher.
'I know you prefer the technical stuff but there are two parts involved in audio, what makes sound via a moving diaphragm and what happens when the sound waves hit our ears. Both sides are equally important" <=== Yes, I agree.
'but you don’t seem to have any interest whatsoever in explaining the second part and how your specific auditory experience forms the foundation of your interest and ultimately for your argument.' <=== Sorry for my ignorance, I don't really get what you want to say. Do you mean I need to explain how/why people hear the difference? Sorry, I really don't get it. I didn't use any of my hearing as my argument for the discussion? I don't think I use "I can hear the difference" as the argument for our discussion as it is my own personal experience. Correct?
Nice. Some like me will use critical thinking and analyze what people say as information we will chew on for a time but when we start seeing the information is essentially half truths we might not be a welcoming as you and call it a misunderstanding.OK, I’ll assume it was just a genuine misunderstanding due to the article itself being misleading:
A basic tenet of digital audio (as set out in the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem) is that the conversion from analogue to digital and from digital to analogue is band limited, IE. There are two filters, an anti-alias filter when converting to digital and an anti-image (or reconstruction) filter when converting from digital back to analogue. Uniquely, NOS DACs typically do not have a reconstruction filter and are therefore effectively broken! For this reason they are not used for professional or commercial audio applications, they are purely an audiophile marketing gimmick. Fortunately, NOS DACs are extremely rare, although in recent years the trend in the audiophile DAC market has been to provide switchable filter options and a few of them provide an option that emulates a NOS DAC. Though why anyone would want to emulate a broken DAC design in a DAC that isn’t broken is a mystery only an audiophile marketer (or someone suckered by it) could appreciate.
The article to which you linked does not demonstrate “critical thinking or good learning” because it doesn’t consider how DACs actually work, it only considers this rare, effectively broken design and therefore promotes the false marketing (pseudo science) which it falsely claims it’s trying to help others to avoid! By the author’s own words: “My critical thinking does not allow me to accept any claim without …further analysis.” - How is it possible that his “further analysis” only revealed a very rare, broken design but not how DACs are supposed to work or indeed how nearly all DACs do work? That is NOT critical thinking and it is DEFINITELY NOT a “good learning technique” if he hasn’t even learned the fundamental basics of how digital audio works! However as mentioned previously, he might actually have learned the basics and have applied critical thinking but is simply lying, in order to deliberately mislead others.
G
It seems that you have a lot of assumptions.You say you hearing differences between CD snd Hi Res isn’t an argument for this discussion but isn’t the entire premise of your argument that you believe there are audible benefits. That is you have personally experienced differences but science indicates the technical differences should not be audible.
I am asking how you hear those benefits when current science indicates the differences are outside human auditory limits.
Not technically “how” because you probably wouldn’t know that but I am trying to establish if in essence you believe that science doesn’t understand human hearing. That seems to be a necessary assertion if the rest of your argument has any merit.
You are old enough that your hearing probably tops out at maybe 15khz maximum yet it seems like you are saying you still hear improvement with high res that science says doesn’t exist.
Either I have missed something in the premise of the discussion or I am not getting my question across so you understand me.
I know you want to talk about the technical stuff but the technical stuff and you or anyone else hearing differences due to the technical stuff are intrinsically linked.
The benefits of Hi-Res is not just for high frequency. If you think Hi-Res is just for frequency higher than 20 or 22kHz, then I suggest you to find out more info regarding the benefits of Hi-ResYou are old enough that your hearing probably tops out at maybe 15khz maximum yet it seems like you are saying you still hear improvement with high res that science says doesn’t exist.
It seems that you have a lot of assumptions.
Let me make it clear:
1. Quite a lot of people claim that "Hi-Res is useless" (statement 1). Some of them would use "the Monty's video" as proof for that claim.
2. My writings are to show supporting facts that "Hi-Res is not useless" (statement 2). Why some supporters believe iin statement 1? Part of the reason was caused by the mis-leading video. So, using facts to show that the video is misleading helps those supporters see the truth clearly.
Note: I didn't use "I can hear the difference" as any supporting "fact" for statement 2 because it is just my own personal experience. Similarly, I would consider the same if someone said "I cannot hear the difference". i.e. "You cannot hear it" is not a supporting fact for statement 1.
It looks to me people are still thinking like:
"I cannot hear the difference so it is useless" vs "I can hear the difference so it is not useless"
This is not something I was talking about. I was talking about objective facts. Not something you or I can hear or not.
Of course it is an argument for our discussion because the reason why "Hi-Res" is useless for consumers is because nobody can hear the difference. Many, many people think they can hear the difference, but in a proper test they can not.Yes: I hear the difference between Hi-Res and CD <== not an argument for our discussion.
Oh, I forgot: Or maybe you compared using inappropiate gain staging in some way or another?Maybe you thought you heard a difference with "high-res"? Maybe you did a uncontrolled, sighted or not properly level matched listening comparison?
Or maybe you inadvertently compared two different masters (or otherwise differently processed versions) of the same music?
Or maybe you compared using playback equipment that produces audible intermodulation distortion due to ultrasonic content in the "high-res" version (making "high-res" objectively worse but audibly different)?
(Or maybe you compared using a NOS DAC that messes up the 44.1/16 version more than it messes up the "high res" version?)
"No you didn’t use the assertion that you can hear differences as proof but isn’t that still the premise of your argument ?" <=== my hearing of the difference is NOT a proof of "Hi-Res is not useless"No you didn’t use the assertion that you can hear differences as proof but isn’t that still the premise of your argument ?
That is you hear something that science doesn’t agree with so you are debating the science ?
My point is, if my comments above are accurate, you debate the science rather than questioning your perception of what you hear and yet they are the only two factors involved and both are equally important.
Is that a fair critique ?
If I have missed something that is fine, my mistake and I am happy to own that.
Yes, of course I read, but I don't just believe everything I read. I am critical of what I read. Proper DACs do not have staircases. If the picture is from the actual output, the DAC doesn't function as it should.Did you read the source of the picture? How to pick the best filter setting for your DAC – Addicted To Audio
Please have a look of the source for more details..
I was wrong, I imagine I mixed up AD and AK chips.Did AKM make any R2R chip before? If yes, could you let me know which one? I am very interested to find out. Thanks.
From your reply, looks like you really cannot relate Hi-Res and those staircases...BTW, I still don't know what point you've been trying to make about hires in relation to those staircases, and so far nobody else volunteered to help you since I asked. Could it be that they also don't have a clue? Anybody?