-
Welcome to ASR. 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!
WADAX REFERENCE DAC-$160K
- Thread starter Pearljam5000
- Start date
You can just do this for DACs as well. You’ll end up with an equivalent result: there will be no preference, meaning people cannot tell one from another.
Why does it matter?
It is contextual to presumptions made about the DAC performance in juxtaposition to any DAC that fits your definition of 'transparent'
oleg87
Addicted to Fun and Learning
we measure the performance of "error correction" with distortion and frequency response measurements. most quality DACs have zero issues there (if you're very young, you might hear some difference in the top octave of human-audible frequencies since filter implementations vary, but if you're in the market for a $300K DAC it's unlikely you still have the hearing to discern any of it). throwing overkill at a non-problem isn't going to improve anything.
Is time and phase taken into account? Isn't this part of the science of audio?
Talisman
Major Contributor
I've spent too much time online to want to argue with a troll.
I just want to say, for fun, that every pair of 25/30 euro TWS earphones has two DACs, and probably neither of those two DACs is distinguishable from this one
This makes me laugh a lot.
I just want to say, for fun, that every pair of 25/30 euro TWS earphones has two DACs, and probably neither of those two DACs is distinguishable from this one
This makes me laugh a lot.
Remember: transparent is not the benchmark here. Transparent is easy. The benchmark is the input signal. If we play a multitone signal via the DAC, we know exactly what we would expect to come out. So we can measure it, and deduce how much it differs from the optimal.
How the DAC achieves this, doesn’t matter. We treat it as a black box.
For sure, if some interesting technology is going on in that box, it’s fun to know about it and geek out over it. But that’s a totally different thing.
I don't understand why this touches a nerve here... especially when there is no desire to dissect the concepts proposed in the DSP processing using Hilbert Mapping that has relevance to audio science and subjective psychoacoustic perception... you keep talking about measurable transparency as the arbiter of all things relevant in juxtaposition to the WADAX design architecture and the relative value proposition... Is this DSP not relevant in the general perspective regarding this particular DAC architecture?
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2019
- Messages
- 3,459
- Likes
- 5,122
Um, you have only to look at test data on this site for other DACs for your answer. Jitter is easy to spot.
No, engineers have been working exclusively inside a black hole, where time and phase do not exist, and only now, through the proper juxtaposition of luxury prose and DAC marketing, has audio science become contextual to causality.
Is this DSP only looking at noise related jitter or is it an amalgamation of influences in the DAC architecture that are under control...?
You can’t have a technical discussion when there’s no technical substance being disclosed.
There is no scientific reference to Hilbert Mapping in digital-audio system design?
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2019
- Messages
- 3,459
- Likes
- 5,122
Amalgamated Jitter could be a great name for a really geeky band.
“Hilbert Mapping” isn’t a common term. A “Hilbert Transform” is a common term and it’s an operation used for signal analysis, but can also be used to create FIR filters, for instance for a DAC low-pass filter.
All else is just speculation… there is way too little information to come to any sensible conclusion on what is really going on. Who’s to blame for that, do you think?
oleg87
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Yes.
oleg87
Addicted to Fun and Learning
There is nothing to "dissect", it is meaningless marketing mumbo jumbo.
If they have evidence that their feedforward thing outperforms a quality implementation of a $10 ESS chip, they have not offered it. In fact they offer no performance specs whatsoever that I can find.
We could start here:
Hilbert Transform Design Example | Spectral Audio Signal Processing
Hilbert Transform Design Example We will now use the window method to design a complex bandpass filter which passes positive frequencies and rejects...
www.dsprelated.com
....And extrapolate into the potentials of the WADAX algorithm... How would you go about measuring this to make a definitive conclusion about 'transparency' and the psychoacoustic value of the DSP as implemented in the DAC architecture anyway? ... Theoretically this DSP could be implemented in any DAC platform design...
Last edited:
Why not ask WADAX?We could start here:
Hilbert Transform Design Example | Spectral Audio Signal Processing
Hilbert Transform Design Example We will now use the window method to design a complex bandpass filter which passes positive frequencies and rejects...
....And extrapolate into the potentials of the WADAX algorithm... How would you go about measuring this to make a definitive conclusion about 'transparency' and the psychoacoustic value of the DSP as implemented in the DAC architecture anyway?
Similar threads
