Interesting...

[yuckyamson]

Professor Plum has been thoroughly discredited since being found in the library with a candlestick inserted up his ass.

"Discredited"?? Baby if anything gimme Plum's home phone number, address, and tell him I'm on the way for a party. Guys' got my full respect.

 

[Steven Toy]

Really? What about the infamous toe-tapping, head-bobbing audio salesmen? Are you familiar with the work of Derren Brown?

You make a lot of assumptions. There is often a group of us and we take the piss out of that kind of thing do get off your soap box!

 

[Pac1]

You paraphrased Steven's point as,



And if that is his point, then he is wrong, as I said. It would be rare for a modern DAC to have a poor digital attenuation implementation. Steven's DAC contains an ESS Sabre chip,(they seem to be ubiquitous), and that does not have a poor attenuator.


It's a non-point that some people believe something.


Name some of these poor attenuation implementations, and can you show the measurements?


This isn't 'subjectivist' vs 'objectivist'.

I formed my opinion of the digital attenuator in a Sabre by listening, and, unlike Steven, I've also done some listening at the extremes of level and attenuation, just to see how well it all works.

Paul

I am not in the habit of "naming and shaming" other manufacturer's kit; let's just say that I auditioned several DACs last year, two stood out for very poorly implemented digital attenuation systems. Not every DAC uses Sabre chips. I fail to see why you are being so argumentative over a simple statement that some digital devices are still poorly implemented, because the fact is, they can be and are.

One of the ones I listened to was circa £2,200 so not insignificant cost wise, and you re not alone in saying you gather your opinion by listening as my own opinions were gathered through listening as well as having an understanding of the techonology. If this is some sort of beef between Steven and yourself, just say so without dragging me into it. All I was trying to point out is that I have some sympathy with the opinion that not all digital sources have decent attenuation systems and I don't need your approval thank you very much to hold that valid opinion. Sorry but the tone of your responses has become a little too over bearing. As to "this is not about subjectivist V's objectivist" I don't know which thread you've been reading but there is plenty of evidence of it on this one. Nuff said.

 

[zarniwoop]

You make a lot of assumptions. There is often a group of us and we take the piss out of that kind of thing do get off your soap box!

I am genuinely at a loss to understand your reaction.

1. I didn't make any assumptions. On the contrary I was suggesting an alternative explanation for the reported audible effect of 0.5db of digital attenuation.

2. I don't think you were at the demo on which the 6moons report was based, so how could you know how it was conducted? For clarity, I wasn't there either, so I don't know, hence my use of speculative language. Also, I believe techniques used to influence can be much more subtle than those to which I referred.

3. Soap box? Really? I'm expressing a view on a forum, just as you are.

 

[merlin]

Actually, I have no idea if this is what merlin is suggesting, but it gave me an opportunity to post a comic that's funny because it's true.

Joe

True indeed Joe.


Scientists aren't normal, and if they gave that statement the correct level of scrutiny, you'd have to suppose that they would concur.

 

[maxflinn]

Max,


I think what merlin is saying is that people with a scientific outlook view the world differently from blokes off the street, unless those blokes happen to be scientists.

Actually Joe, on reflection I'm not sure Merlin means what I thought he meant.

Actually, I have no idea if this is what merlin is suggesting, but it gave me an opportunity to post a comic that's funny because it's true.

Joe

Good one .

 

[Cav]

There is a middle ground if you take the absolutism out of science.

Do you seriously not have clue or are just stirring it?

 

[Joe P]

Mike,

Scientists aren't normal, and if they gave that statement the correct level of scrutiny, you'd have to suppose that they would concur.

Tell me about it. I married a scientist and although I'm not one I play a scientist on TV and I have to tell you that our exchanges at home aren't much different from a Big Bang Theory episode.

Joe

 

[Paul R]

I am not in the habit of "naming and shaming" other manufacturer's kit; let's just say that I auditioned several DACs last year, two stood out for very poorly implemented digital attenuation systems. Not every DAC uses Sabre chips. I fail to see why you are being so argumentative over a simple statement that some digital devices are still poorly implemented, because the fact is, they can be and are.

Because it is not true of Steven's DAC. Nor of the DAC in the piece he linked to. Obviously not every DAC uses a Sabre, but it has become extremely common, and DACs using Sabres are generally well received.

Anyway I'd like to know which modern DACs you consider have poor digital attenuation, so I can see if I can understand why. This isn't 'naming and shaming', it goes to your credibility.

Paul

 

[Joe Hutch]

Really? What about the infamous toe-tapping, head-bobbing audio salesmen? Are you familiar with the work of Derren Brown?

Derren Brown sold me a top-flight Naim system. Actually when I came out of the trance it was just an Alba microsystem, but he sure had me fooled for a while.

 

[Igloo Audio]

How do we know what's true? - narrated by Stephen Fry

That's an excellent video with his one on language. See Here

Intelligent people are making some headway...

Peter

 

[adamdea]

Those films are both rather good. That said the implications of Fry's analogy of suit-wearing in interviews does merit further development; many of the pedants he detests would probably consider that BBC newsreaders should be expected to adhere to certain formal conventions of language for the same reason that they (if male) wear suits and ties.

 

[Steven Toy]

Do you seriously not have clue or are just stirring it?

It's the cav troll.

 

[Tw99]

Not all the scientific knowledge just some of it when the bigger picture is ignored for whatever reason.

Hey, pick'n'mix Physics.

 

[MVV]

How relevant is that to the issue in hand?

Well, I'm really not sure but I'm pretty sure what you have in hand- it makes you who you are. Call me old fashioned but I thought the issue at hand was that nauseating, unreadable, nonsense of a piece of marketing crap you suggested was an 'interesting article'.

 

[Steven Toy]

Well, I'm really not sure but I'm pretty sure what you have in hand- it makes you who you are. Call me old fashioned but I thought the issue at hand was that nauseating, unreadable, nonsense of a piece of marketing crap you suggested was an 'interesting article'.

Roland Barthes might have described it as "scriptible."

 

[darrenyeats]

It's a topic well worth users of digital music to debate, whether it is better to use a pre amp, or rely on digital attenuation.
Sometimes a debate can become difficult when it becomes incomprehensible.

"The natural gain structure MUST be correct for digital volume control to work properly."

No doubt somebody will understand it.

As Adam wrote in post #54, I refer to the native loudness (output voltage level) of the DAC being such that you don't need to apply too much digital attenuation at usual listening levels. The idea is that the loudest you need to go should sit near the top of the digital volume range. Obviously that also depends on amp, speakers, room size etc.

If you find that your system plays VERY LOUD at -30db digital attenuation, you're in effect missing 30db of analogue resolution in your source. Obviously using such amounts of attenuation when listening quietly is not a problem in itself, since that's what a volume control is for. The idea is to digitally attenuate as much as needed - but never more than that.