WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions.
Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Sorry, I don't get your point. It's a better filter. I don't know if it's audible or not. Some devices have better Sinad. I don't know if it's audible or not. I'll let you guys define what is a SOTA experience.
SOTA DAC experience is strictly SOTA (i.e. Best SINAD, lowest jitter, steepest filter). Chord DACs lack the former two and therefore is NOT SOTA. To me what would be closest to SOTA is Holo Audio May KTE DAC (NOS mode and oversampled with HQPlayer PCM 1536KHz Sinc-L with 15th order noise shaper ~4M taps, probably steeper than WTA Filter) which has all three categories in spades (though not as SOTA in SINAD against Delta Sigma implementation, but very respectful 118-120 dB SINAD for a ladder resistor DAC implementation)
Sorry, I don't get your point. It's a better filter. I don't know if it's audible or not. Some devices have better Sinad. I don't know if it's audible or not. I'll let you guys define what is a SOTA experience.
When Stereopile reviewed the DAVE you can read through the lines--nothing to be impressed by. Then you go to the comments and Stereopile is accused of manipulating the testing parameters for the DAVE. So, Chord should not be shocked by this review. They NEW this thing was an overpriced POS.
Sorry, I don't get your point. It's a better filter. I don't know if it's audible or not. Some devices have better Sinad. I don't know if it's audible or not. I'll let you guys define what is a SOTA experience.
Okay. If your singular point is that it is a better filter, then I bow to your engineering knowledge and accept that it is. Is that your point?
Also, as someone that is working in audio with a degree in EE, I would think that you would be aware of what a SOTA dac would be.
Okay. If your singular point is that it is a better filter, then I bow to your engineering knowledge and accept that it is. Is that your point?
Also, as someone that is working in audio with a degree in EE, I would think that you would be aware of what a SOTA dac would be.
Does it mean noise that’s below audible levels? Either way, it should be easy do demonstrate through measurements. A comparison of CPU vs FPGA processed audio should reveal it. That, I’m sure, is a test RW has done many times if he went to the length of designing his own FPGA. Did he publish the results somewhere?
It will also create a "safe space" where terms like blind testing, ABx and placebo are banned as that can cause damage to their fragile minds due to cognitive dissonance. To be honest, I'm not even sure that the usual member of Head Fi Facebook group can even experience cognitive dissonance as that will indicate some level of cognitive ability that is lacking.
Digital signal manipulation and processing don't warrant a patent, You need to actually invent a technology. For white papers, good question, it is possible, but it doesn't take away the fact that if there is no DAC chip in the box, someone had to code the thing don't you think?
You can -and everybody does- buy a lot of IP (intellectual property, as in code) in chip and FPGA design. There is a thriving market for that. In fact one of the advantages of FPGAs is that you can basically just program them from existing IP to address your particular use case - you may not need to program a single gate. "Innovation through Reuse/Reassembly" is a big thing. I am in no way implying that is what Chord does. But there isn't a single company IMO that uses FPGAs and does not leverage exisiting IP for some key functions - it'd be wasting your time re-inventing the wheel for irrelevant functions, and a great way to get sued for infringing patents.
As to audio not relying on patents, there are many examples to the contrary - and DSP basically is the enabling technology for audio, whether in a CPU or FPGA or embedded in a DAC chip, you can bet there are patents and IP embedded in it.
Does it mean noise that’s below audible levels? Either way, it should be easy do demonstrate through measurements. A comparison of CPU vs FPGA processed audio should reveal it. That, I’m sure, is a test RW has done many times if he went to the length of designing his own FPGA. Did he publish the results somewhere?
It could be possible that a CPU running at high utilization and hence heating up other components nearby causes noise issues I assume, but that is an indication of a bad design. My days of designing circuits in HF are long over, but that is part of it. A CPU running at several GHz will have a bit of an antenna effect -as do several other components on a board-, but that should be accounted for with basic design rules. I work in a world where we design devices able to carry several Terabits per second, and that intersection of digital and analog is a nasty design challenge. But should it affect devices running music? IMO naw, honestly, the bandwidth and CPU required is basically child's play - although I am sure the design challenges in putting it all together are very real (I have never worked in the audio industry). And today's Class D sophistication is magic to me.
It could be possible that a CPU running at high utilization and hence heating up other components nearby causes noise issues I assume, but that is an indication of a bad design. My days of designing circuits in HF are long over, but that is part of it. A CPU running at several GHz will have a bit of an antenna effect -as do several other components on a board-, but that should be accounted for with basic design rules. I work in a world where we design devices able to carry several Terabits per second, and that intersection of digital and analog is a nasty design challenge. But should it affect devices running music? IMO naw, honestly, the bandwidth and CPU required is basically child's play - although I am sure the design challenges in putting it all together are very real (I have never worked in the audio industry). And today's Class D sophistication is magic to me.
Thanks for the precision. At post 633, just up. There is a complete block diagram of all the functions implemented. Which of those are worthy of a patent in your opinion?
Thanks for the precision. At post 633, just up. There is a complete block diagram of all the functions implemented. Which of those are worthy of a patent in your opinion?
It's odd to see a DAC there in the output, since I thought the claim was there were none.
Chord prides itself on its filters, so those blocks may warrant patenting if they think they are doing something unique that deserves protecting. I am no expert in this field, that's just looking at the blocks in the design.
Does it mean noise that’s below audible levels? Either way, it should be easy do demonstrate through measurements. A comparison of CPU vs FPGA processed audio should reveal it. That, I’m sure, is a test RW has done many times if he went to the length of designing his own FPGA. Did he publish the results somewhere?
Just to be clear, this isn't something Rob Watts has said. I meant what I've heard from audio dealers. I was dubious for a non-audio reason: it sounded too convenient an explanation, especially since no one was saying this 10 years ago that I'm aware of.
At this point, I've seen enough to say that manufacturers of intermediary components (DACs, cables, etc.) should provide measurements that show some indication of how they are meaningfully different from existing products. It shouldn't be on people like Amir to perform the tests. Speakers/headphones are different, I still really would want to try those myself because it's such a personal decision.
It's odd to see a DAC there in the output, since I thought the claim was there were none.
Chord prides itself on its filters, so those blocks may warrant patenting if they think they are doing something unique that deserves protecting. I am no expert in this field, that's just looking at the blocks in the design.
The claim is that there is no dac IC. It's a discrete dac. I am no expert neither but I do not think a filter no matter how good it is is patentable, it is made using a finite impulse response, a known technique, it's the putting all that together that require an impressive amount of knowledge, understanding, skill and dedication but there is no new formula, no discovery.
Now you are referring to a post (#633) that clearly shows a dac chip. So, which is it: they wrote their own code for the dac process or they used an existing dac?
The claim is that there is no dac IC. It's a discrete dac. I am no expert neither but I do not think a filter no matter how good it is is patentable, it is made using a finite impulse response, a known technique, it's the putting all that together that require an impressive amount of knowledge, understanding, skill and dedication but there is no new formula, no discovery.
I am no fan of the filters, but the Chord claim to fame is they *abstract* the filters to easily consumable filters you can play with. That abstraction is eminently patent worthy if there's value to it. Abstractions of complexity are powerful tools. Maybe if *you* are an expert you can go build your own DSP powered filters, but you go to Chord to consume them easily. You could also claim the iPhone does nothing fundamentally new, you could go learn Swift and program your very own applications on the device. Alas you can't because it's protected by a zillion patents.
You can actually patent the *idea* of abstracting a concept these days provided you provide the fundamentals to the approach.
Now you are referring to a post (#633) that clearly shows a dac chip. So, which is it: they wrote their own code for the dac process or they used an existing dac?
Ha, I see yes, there are "chips" used in the design. What I refer to a DAC IC is a IC that perform all the functions of the conversion from analog to digital. There are in this designs some single functions circuitry yes. Which box is the DAC chip exactly in post 633?
