Right. I am just saying that when the quality filters down to the $9 level, then nobody will be able to debate that DACs are a solved problem at all price levels.I mean already for $90 it shows that DAC's don't need to be expensive to be good.
Right. I am just saying that when the quality filters down to the $9 level, then nobody will be able to debate that DACs are a solved problem at all price levels.I mean already for $90 it shows that DAC's don't need to be expensive to be good.
True that, I think the apple or Google dongle was already pretty close though AFAIK?Right. I am just saying that when the quality filters down to the $9 level, then nobody will be able to debate that DACs are a solved problem at all price levels.
Thanks.Wow. A lot of work man! Nice
The Jitter on SPDIF is not how we like it, for sure, but there is very little chance it would make any audible difference.for guys like me, that want to use it with other sources, like older CD/BD players, the SPDIF input performance is a no go.
could you explain a little the effort of "synchro" of dac rme that you had to make for this multitone etc?Thanks.
The Jitter on SPDIF is not how we like it, for sure, but there is very little chance it would make any audible difference.
Some critical measurements above, like the Multitone measurement, where perfect sync between the DAC and RME clock is required, were performed using the SPDIF input.
As you can see, there is nothing to complain about.
And, anyway, the result will still outperform the capabilities of the older sources you want to connect.
So that should not stop you to use this one, IMO.
As it doesn't stop me.
Sure.could you explain a little the effort of "synchro" of dac rme that you had to make for this multitone etc?
thank you..
from memory, if amirm often uses a dolph 200 with the ap, I don't know if he detailed what he uses in the specific case of multitones (44k)?Bien sûr.
Multitone est un test proposé par Audioprecision.
Vous pouvez trouver la description ici .
Pour que ce test donne tous les bénéfices, ils génèrent un signal -ici avec 32 tonalités séparées d'environ 1/3 d'octave- où chaque "pic" tombe exactement dans une case de la FFT.
AudioPrecision dispose d'un moyen d'aligner la synchronisation dans l'analyseur, de resynchroniser le signal avec le moteur FFT, mais le logiciel que j'utilise (et aucun autre logiciel à ma connaissance) ne l'a pas.
Par conséquent, la seule façon d’y parvenir est (dans ce cas) d’envoyer l’horloge au DAC depuis l’ADC.
Ensuite, une transformation FFT « sans fenêtre » peut être utilisée avec une séparation claire du signal et du bruit + distorsion.
Si la synchronisation ne fonctionne pas, la FFT « sans fenêtre » devient inutilisable. On s'appuie alors sur "Blackman-Harris 7" ou une autre fenêtre FFT hautement discriminante, mais ils ont des lobes plus larges qui ne résoudront pas les basses fréquences très proches.
(Les groupes FFT sont à une distance de fréquence constante, tandis que les tonalités sont espacées selon une loi logarithmique. Ainsi, le nombre de groupes entre les tonalités successives est très faible aux basses fréquences et très grand aux plus hautes.)
Voici une comparaison quand ça marche
View attachment 309515
et quand ce n'est pas le cas
(D'après la revue Fiio BTA30 Pro )
View attachment 309516
J'utilise le logiciel Audioprevision APx500 Flex en mode Démo pour générer les tonalités AP 32 exactes à différentes fréquences et tailles FFT.
Il est important de noter que TD+N varie en fonction du facteur de crête du fichier, qui varie entre des multiples de 44,1 kHz et des multiples de 48 kHz.
(Probablement une des raisons pour lesquelles Amir n'utilise pas ce chiffre.)
Il existe d'autres cas où cela s'avère très utile :
On peut obtenir la réponse en fréquence en une seconde en utilisant le bruit périodique REW, comme exemple. Mais il faut aussi utiliser "no window" et être synchronisé pour que cela fonctionne.
De plus, pour la linéarité, je préfère utiliser la FFT "sans fenêtre" car elle est plus précise pour les mesures de niveau et permet de contrôler facilement la largeur que vous envisagez pour votre signal.
AP is using a proprietary Window function, derived from Dolph-Chebyshev.from memory, if amirm often uses a dolph 200 with the ap
Amir once wrote he is using 192kHz sampling, 256k FFT for Multitone.I don't know if he detailed what he uses in the specific case of multitones (44k)?
The excellent Multitone software generates a different 32 tones, where lower frequencies are more spread appart (to allow better discrimination of low frequency peaks with usual functions I suppose).Multitones from Pkanes has been offering an AP32 test for a long time.
in case, the ap32 in 192k has been made available here...AP is using a proprietary Window function, derived from Dolph-Chebyshev.
(Read here)
Amir once wrote he is using 192kHz sampling, 256k FFT for Multitone.
Given how narrow the peaks look, it's using Rectangle ("no window") FFT function.
The excellent Multitone software generates a different 32 tones, where lower frequencies are more spread appart (to allow better discrimination of low frequency peaks with usual functions I suppose).
I've performed a quick checkTopping gives 20 ohm as output impedance in their specs.
| Open circuit Voltage | V1 | 2.1138 | Vrms |
| Load resistance | RL | 613.9 | Ohm |
| Loaded circuit Voltage | V2 | 2.0454 | Vrms |
| Zo=RL*(V1/V2-1) | Zo | 20.5 | Ohm |
So, comfortably low. ThanksI've performed a quick check
Output impedance
Open circuit Voltage V1 2.1138Vrms Load resistance RL 613.9Ohm Loaded circuit Voltage V2 2.0454Vrms Zo=RL*(V1/V2-1) Zo 20.5Ohm
(Measured at 997Hz only, with a calibrated Brymen BM869s)
Not SOTA performance yet. But they are pretty decent (especially the Apple dongle) and actually the performance for the size and price is really good.True that, I think the apple or Google dongle was already pretty close though AFAIK?
There are actually multiple ways to generate multitones with Multitone. A preconfigured test signal named Multitone 32 (AP) is based on both, frequencies and phase of the AP multitone signal that Amir uses.The excellent Multitone software generates a different 32 tones, where lower frequencies are more spread appart (to allow better discrimination of low frequency peaks with usual functions I suppose).
There are actually multiple ways to generate multitones with Multitone. A preconfigured test signal named Multitone 32 (AP) is based on both, frequencies and phase of the AP multitone signal that Amir uses.
View attachment 309597
... for which you then use "no window" FFT.There are actually multiple ways to generate multitones with Multitone. A preconfigured test signal named Multitone 32 (AP) is based on both, frequencies and phase of the AP multitone signal that Amir uses.
View attachment 309597
Sorry, but I've not had a chance to read the rest of the messages. What is the significance of "no window" or "window" FFT in this context?... for which you then use "no window" FFT.
It basically is. The apple dongle achieves a sinad of just under 100dB with other measures to match.Right. I am just saying that when the quality filters down to the $9 level, then nobody will be able to debate that DACs are a solved problem at all price levels.
So now the question is, just what is the most expensive DAC on the market with comparable (or worse) performance to the Apple dongle?It basically is. The apple dongle achieves a sinad of just under 100dB with other measures to match.
That is audibly indistinguishable from this.
Dacs are a solved problem at all price levels.