[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?

[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"
"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 ****ing 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 **** the hell off - you stupid ****ing IMBECILE.



....... Phil

[[email protected]]

So "audiophile" is passe?

[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 ****ing 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 ****ed 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 **** HEAD !!

GO DROP DEAD

[Patrick Turner]

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 ****ing 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 **** the hell off - you stupid ****ing IMBECILE.

...... Phil

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]

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 **** 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[_3_]]

On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:33:11 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



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 ****ing 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 **** the hell off - you stupid ****ing IMBECILE.

...... Phil

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.

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]

flipper wrote in
:

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]

Cipher wrote:

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,

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[_2_]]

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[_2_]]

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 ****ing tenth witted MORON .

No, it's perfectly honest.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

flipper wrote:

On Sat, 23 May 2009 17:51:58 -0500, 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?

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