..when back in the box it will be a little better.
Will it? Not that I see many RF stuff on your measurements. Not that such thin case can block many RF stuff either.
..when back in the box it will be a little better.
well, since it went little worse when I took it out, I would expect the opposite thing may happen as well ....Will it? Not that I see many RF stuff on your measurements. Not that such thin case can block many RF stuff either.
Yes it is LDOWhat kind of piece is this ? Perhaps voltage regulator, from 5,3v to 5.0v ?
I do. How about you? Have you read the paper this came from? And the reason those two graphs are higher than the rest???
I have the paper already and read it. The only two caps that did worse where due to piezoelectric effect/acoustic interference. It has nothing to do with the current arguments. Or any superiority of different caps. The write-up is also very poorly done with little detail as to why the distortion is as bad as it is to start with.You can find the paper here:
The dc-dc module is actually smaller than the space for the 2 tps dc switcher. This is a higher quality one from Murata in mouser.
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Murata-Power-Solutions/NMA1515SC?qs=sGAEpiMZZMvGsmoEFRKS8Kn8hpQIdAem/1LMX04mJrk=
I have seem a dip to smd socket with cog cap solder accross the +/- pin. This is one of the opamp tweaks that improve the sound.
If I do this, I would use a audio ecap and solder one of the leg directly on the socket and the other to the board.
Topping had an initial offer of the D70 but ended without further news.
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Top...-Decoder-December-20-Arrival/32959667114.html
The ak4497 would be more difficult to implement correctly and more demanding on the power supply.
You can play with battery power directly to the digital circuit. Trust me, it will be a revelation. The lifepo4 battery output 3.2-3v and you can easily tap it directly. Just using the battery on the clock will bring improvement.
I have the paper already and read it. The only two caps that did worse where due to piezoelectric effect/acoustic interference. It has nothing to do with the current arguments. Or any superiority of different caps. The write-up is also very poorly done with little detail as to why the distortion is as bad as it is to start with.
Please don't throw data at the membership hoping they don't understand it or no one knows how to get the rest of the data.
They are not valid data when you cut off even the label under the graph let alone the link to the paper. The piezoelectric effects are known and nothing new. The focus of the paper is also on acoustic interference from what I can gather. It certainly has no bearing on headphone listening.Those curves are valid measurement data. The main focus is to show the different curves among tantalum and electrolytic, etc. The small gaps look deceiving here due to the scaling to accommodate the poorly performed MLCC.
it sounds pretty good indeed.... not matching yet my heavy es9028pro box, but... velvet sound you know
since there is no way how to objectively forward listening impressions (whatever you think about that), i took the liberty to measure 192/24 1khz sinewave, which should show the things if done right.
They are not valid data when you cut off even the label under the graph let alone the link to the paper. The piezoelectric effects are known and nothing new. The focus of the paper is also on acoustic interference from what I can gather. It certainly has no bearing on headphone listening.
now listening "Sultans of Swing" I can say that Mark Knopfler has become overly sibilant (what of course he is not) and in general, this thing has exaggerated highs and some deficit in the midrange. lows also might be more resolute. opamp rolling or filter recalculation hardly will be an optimal solution. actually, I like OPA1612 very much, but not in such a silly position serving 2 mono dacs. better they would use only one dac and FDAs for each channel followed by a summing opamp. would increase the price a little, but unfortunately, the designer has been under heavy influence of the datasheet schematics
Did you know something about it ?
To get full and rich bass, you will have to remove those coupling caps.
I doubt whether the capacitor rolling will be any good here. their choice depends on many factors including the regulators utilized. I have not yet scrutinized how exactly secondary regulation is organized, but for instance, one can not just put a top-notch 10uF cap on the LP5907 output, if it is designed to work with 1uF ceramic. secondly, for audio the primary importance in a LOW and FLAT PS output impedance over all frequency range, the task that IMHO is beyond the selection of capacitors only...
Says who though, there is a little too much of purely empirical advice going on here, especially by you finneybear really..
I mean these mods are fun to look at, but for the average viewer stumbling on this 156p thread I don't think this is of the essence really.
No, I meant capacitors for power OPA1612.You meant the 4493 output coupling cap, size 3216? You only need voltage rating 6.3v there. 47uf nobium oxide is the largest I can find. Dont use tantalum there. If you want strong full bass, no coupling will be the way to go.