What is a true multibit converter??
Cipher
what is it?? where does it fit in the audio lexicon>?
Phil Allison
"Cipher"
>I see this term being bandied about a lot on certain audio forums..
>
> what is it?? where does it fit in the audio lexicon>?
** Audiophool slang.
..... Phil
Phil Allison
"flipper"
"Phil Allison"
> making "Audiophool slang" devices.
** The **term** is audiophool slang - you fucking tenth witted MORON .
> AD1852 Stereo, 24-Bit, 192KHz, Multibit Sigma Delta DAC
> AD1853 Stereo, 24 Bit, 192 kHz, Multibit Sigma-Delta DAC
> AD1854 Stereo, 96 kHz, Multibit Sigma-Delta DAC
> AD1855 Stereo, 96 kHz, Multibit Sigma Delta DAC
> AD1857 Stereo, Single Supply 16-, 18- and 20-Bit Sigma-Delta DACs
> AD1858 Stereo, Single Supply 16-, 18- and 20-Bit Sigma-Delta DACs
> AD1859 Stereo, Single-Supply 18-Bit Integrated (Sigma Delta) DAC
> AD1955 High Performance, Multibit Sigma-Delta DAC with SACD Playback
** No sign of the CRUCIAL word " true" in any of the above.
Any D to A with Sigma Delta involved is not one.
So piss the hell off - you stupid fucking IMBECILE.
...... Phil
cav...@commspeed.net
Phil Allison
"flipper" = CRIMINAL NUT CASE
>>>>> what is it?? where does it fit in the audio lexicon>?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>** Audiophool slang.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You might want to drop Analog devices a note to tell them they're
>>> making "Audiophool slang" devices.
>>
>>
>>** The **term** is audiophool slang - you fucking tenth witted MORON
>>.
>
>>
>>> AD1852 Stereo, 24-Bit, 192KHz, Multibit Sigma Delta DAC
>>> AD1853 Stereo, 24 Bit, 192 kHz, Multibit Sigma-Delta DAC
>>> AD1854 Stereo, 96 kHz, Multibit Sigma-Delta DAC
>>> AD1855 Stereo, 96 kHz, Multibit Sigma Delta DAC
>>> AD1857 Stereo, Single Supply 16-, 18- and 20-Bit Sigma-Delta DACs
>>> AD1858 Stereo, Single Supply 16-, 18- and 20-Bit Sigma-Delta DACs
>>> AD1859 Stereo, Single-Supply 18-Bit Integrated (Sigma Delta) DAC
>>> AD1955 High Performance, Multibit Sigma-Delta DAC with SACD Playback
>>
>>
>>** No sign of the CRUCIAL word " true" in any of the above.
>
> And I thought ...
** Not even possible with a brain as fucked as yours.
>> Any D to A with Sigma Delta involved is not one.
>
> That, as the Burr Brown devices above prove, is not necessarily true.
** None of the are examples of what the " term " applies to
YOU COLOSSAL FUCK HEAD !!
GO DROP DEAD
Patrick Turner
I agree with Phil that many audiophools haven't much idea about digital
workings.
But they sure like to talk the jargon as if they know something.
So what's the best online source to read, in simple language, exactly
how DA work?
Most explanations I see about digital are incomprehensible.
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
cav...@commspeed.net wrote:
>
> So "audiophile" is passe?
An audiophile is one of those very non passe beings who barely lives and
breaths nervously in short beaths while remaining neurotically obsessive
about the equipment he uses to listen to music recordings. Some have a
mildly competent technical ability, but most remain utterly bamboozeled
by the simplest mental concepts of voltage, current, ohms, and impedance
effects caused by L, C and R circuit elements.
Some have encyclopeadic minds and huge collectiuons of recorded music
and they know the differences between 5 different orchestral recordings
of even little known classical works or jazz/pop/blues etc.
But many have very little appreciation of music and sit for hours
"listening to their amps" or to their latest DA converter.
So audiophiles are definately fussy people about audio matters of one
kind or another. Very few of them actually have extraordinary powers of
hearing. If you measured their hearing then you'd find their frequency
response only average, and often pretty poor if they are over 55. But
what their brains make of what they hear may preoccupy their time much
more than most other people. To some audiophiles, a recording of say
Beethoven's 5th is like an aural feast with a good fuck afterwards,
whereas many people hear B's 5th as "jus nice music" and nowhere near as
exciting as a good meal and a decent root. So thus audiophile will spend
huge sums of money on gear to entice the ultimate reproduction
experience while other folks will only buy a $300 3in1 budget hi-fi,
even when they are 40dB more wealthy.
I suppose I should't suggest a really good meal & root are the ultimate
experiences. But they are for for most people.
One has to spend a pile of money and time spent on applied positive
relationship skills to put such experiences regularly into one's life.
Patrick Turner.
Don Pearce
I can provide two papers that I have been told are very clear - one on
dither, and the other on aliasing. Between them they provide pretty
much all you need to know about AtoD and DtoA.
http://81.174.169.10/general/papers
Ignore the other two as they no longer work and I need to take them
down.
d
Phil Allison
"Dickhead Pearce"
>
> I can provide two papers that I have been told are very clear - one on
> dither, and the other on aliasing.
** Confucius say:
" In all dealings with aliens - one must never dither. "
..... Phil
Cipher
news:do1j15dimo9htdktl...@4ax.com:
> udio data is, of course, 16 bits regardless of how the DAC is made.
>
> The simplest DAC to envision is one where all 16 bits operate in
> parallel with a 'voltage value' assigned to each bit corresponding to
> it's data value and, so, the bits are simply summed to produce the
> output.
>
> That takes a lot of wires and, as a practical matter, since physical
> devices are not perfect and have tolerances it becomes more and more
> difficult (and costly) to make the 'voltage values' accurate as the
> number of bits increases.
>
> Another way is to send the data bits "serial," a "1 bit" (wide) stream
> of data, and, instead of using voltage values, use 'time values' to
> represent the 'value' of the data bits (I.E. a million pulses per
> second is a 'higher value' than 900,000 pulses per second), The 'time
> values' can then be converted to an analog output using filters (which
> integrate over time).
>
> "1 bit" DACs present their own problems, though. The data rate is
> obviously higher than if things were done in parallel and while the
> 'voltage value' is no longer such a huge concern, there being 'just
> one', time jitter becomes the analogous problem for 'time values'. In
> addition, the 'time values' introduce all kinds of noise that is not
> so easy to filter out as it might seem. That's one of the things "over
> sampling" is meant to deal with, but that increases the data rate even
> more.
>
> Both types have advantages, disadvantages, and limitations, depending
> on how many tricks are applied to each. And the number and type of
> tricks usually depends on practicality and how much money one can
> afford in the design.
>
> When data rates were relatively slow full parallel DACs were the most
> practical but component tolerances limited the resolution, or made
> high resolution very very expensive. As solid state and integrated
> circuits became inexpensive serial DACs became practical.
>
> However, currently, serial "1 bit" DACs seem to have a practical limit
> around 18 bits so some are moving partially back to parallel. Not
> 'all' bits in parallel but more than 1.
>
>
thank you Sir...nice to see a response that is on -topic, helpful, and
void of curse words. Phil seems to have mental problems.
Ian Iveson
It's not on topic, and you are a trolling clot.
> helpful
Oh really? In what way was it helpful? Care to say what
sense you made of it?
> and void of curse words.
Such as?
> Phil seems to have mental problems.
Not on topic, and how would you know?
Ian
Eeyore
Cipher wrote:
> I see this term being bandied about a lot on certain audio forums..
>
> what is it?? where does it fit in the audio lexicon>?
Bits = level of quantisation.
Multi = more
So multibit is good.
Graham
--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to my email address
Eeyore
Phil Allison wrote:
> "flipper"
> "Phil Allison"
> >"Cipher"
> >>>I see this term being bandied about a lot on certain audio forums..
> >>>
> >>> what is it?? where does it fit in the audio lexicon>?
> >>
> >>
> >>** Audiophool slang.
> >>
> >
> > You might want to drop Analog devices a note to tell them they're
> > making "Audiophool slang" devices.
>
> ** The **term** is audiophool slang - you fucking tenth witted MORON .
No, it's perfectly honest.
Graham
Eeyore
flipper wrote:
> In this context 'bit' refers to the data width of the DAC but the
> audio data is, of course, 16 bits regardless of how the DAC is made.
WRONG ! CDs are mastered at 16 bit level but the recording these days is
likely to be made using 24 bit converters using significant
'over-sampling' frequencies.
Graham