"Rich.Andrews" wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

R wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:qZ-dnTNPju7CgF_cRVn-
:

"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message



I don't believe the count is relevant. The point is that putting
two dacs in parallel lowers distortion and I feel that if I am going
to spend some money, I might as well spend a bit more and get the
best.

In audio interfaces, AFAIK "The Best" is the LynxTWO.




An input impedance of 24 ohms balanced and 12 ohms unbalanced? Isn't
that a bit low?


Apparently you can't read a spec sheet.

Input Impedance Balanced mode: 24 kW , Unbalanced mode: 12 kW ( the
ohms symbol appears as W in plain text btw ).

http://www.lynxstudio.com/lynxtwospecs.html

IIRC - most modern converters work differentially internally anyway. The
inputs and outputs on the converters I'm currently using are
differential and most others I've looked at are too. Those that are
'single ended' usually have an internal inverting stage that converts
them to internally differential.

You're worrying about non-issues.


Graham



http://lynxstudio.com/reviews/LynxTWOBrochureLoRes.pdf

Clearly says "Unbalanced Mode: 12 greek omega"

That means 12 ohms, not 12k ohms.

What were you saying about reading a spec sheet?

That's a 'printing error' obviously. Input impedances are clearly going to be
kilohms. They ought to get someone to proof read better.

Check my link.

Graham

"Rich.Andrews" wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote in
:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:06:54 GMT, "Rich.Andrews"
wrote:

Not solving a problem per se, but I am trying to sort out which sound
card I might be happy with. Many of the common sound cards sound a bit
harsh or have some sort of "digital grunge" or both. The magic is that
two DACs in parallel lowers distortion. Proper chip decoupling lowers
"digital grunge".

There are good and bad-sounding cards out there. But I wouldn't
worry too much about this particular bit of snake-oil. You've picked
it up from an audiophile review or advert? Come on over to the pro
audio world. You can still spend a lot of money if you insist, but
you'll get more for it than in the audiophile arena :-)


I have actually picked it up from reviewing schematics of CD players and
stand alone DACs that I own or have considered owning.

I suggest you look at DAC manufacturers data for modern parts.

Here's one from AKM for example. Note the differential output.

http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/...95/ak4395.html

Check out the recommended grounding on page 22 and the external differential
Low Pass Filters on page 23 of the following pdf.

http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/...395/ek4395.pdf


Graham

"Rich.Andrews" wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote in
:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:12:20 GMT, "Rich.Andrews"
wrote:

There are good and bad-sounding cards out there. But I wouldn't
worry too much about this particular bit of snake-oil. You've picked
it up from an audiophile review or advert? Come on over to the pro
audio world. You can still spend a lot of money if you insist, but
you'll get more for it than in the audiophile arena :-)


I have actually picked it up from reviewing schematics of CD players and
stand alone DACs that I own or have considered owning.

Yeah. But is it a marketing ploy, or is it actually solving a real
problem?


As far as I am concerned it does make a difference. Don't believe me?
Fine don't. I really don't care. Either the card I am looking for exists
or it doesn't. Unfortunately it appears it does not. So I am going to
have to start from scratch pouring over spec sheets.

Look. Just about any modern sound card will use a differential output DAC.

The sound quality isues will lie elsewhere. Like good grounding design and the
use of decent pro-audio grade op-amps for the ins and outs.

The quality of the *connectors* is actually very important too. Mini jacks
don't cut it !


The pro cards have more capabilities than what I would ever need but I fear
that they pro cards are geared toward 600 ohm balanced and I need high
impedance (~50k ohm) unbalanced as well as 600 ohms balanced.

Apparently you also don't realise that so-called '600 ohm' ( a misnomer btw )
circuits work just fine with Hi-Z too.

If you have Hi-Z gear ( with its lower performance ) why are you agonising over
DACs ?


Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote ...
normanstrong wrote:
If the 2 DACs come from the entire universe of DACs then this will
probably work. But if they come from the same production run or, God
forbid, from the same wafer, the chances are excellent that both DACs
will have errors in exactly the same place--in the same direction.
You could get no benefit from averaging.

Not so. The differences are likely to be 'process related'. No 2 chips
from the same wafer are identical. The method is ( was ) valid.

We fabricate several million die per year next door and I'd
have to agree with Mr. Bear. There is sufficient variation
over even a single wafer to use dual DACs to "swamp out"
any errors.

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote ...
normanstrong wrote:
If the 2 DACs come from the entire universe of DACs then this will
probably work. But if they come from the same production run or, God
forbid, from the same wafer, the chances are excellent that both DACs
will have errors in exactly the same place--in the same direction.
You could get no benefit from averaging.

Not so. The differences are likely to be 'process related'. No 2 chips
from the same wafer are identical. The method is ( was ) valid.

We fabricate several million die per year next door and I'd
have to agree with Mr. Bear. There is sufficient variation
over even a single wafer to use dual DACs to "swamp out"
any errors.

Thank you for validating my comment from your experience.

It is perhaps not widely realised that making semis is somewhat more like
baking a cake than some would like to admit.

They don't call them 'ovens' for nothing ! ;-)


Graham

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

"Rich.Andrews" wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote in
:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:12:20 GMT, "Rich.Andrews"
wrote:

There are good and bad-sounding cards out there. But I wouldn't
worry too much about this particular bit of snake-oil. You've
picked it up from an audiophile review or advert? Come on over to
the pro audio world. You can still spend a lot of money if you
insist, but you'll get more for it than in the audiophile arena :-)


I have actually picked it up from reviewing schematics of CD players
and stand alone DACs that I own or have considered owning.

Yeah. But is it a marketing ploy, or is it actually solving a real
problem?


As far as I am concerned it does make a difference. Don't believe me?
Fine don't. I really don't care. Either the card I am looking for
exists or it doesn't. Unfortunately it appears it does not. So I am
going to have to start from scratch pouring over spec sheets.

Look. Just about any modern sound card will use a differential output
DAC.

The sound quality isues will lie elsewhere. Like good grounding design
and the use of decent pro-audio grade op-amps for the ins and outs.

The quality of the *connectors* is actually very important too. Mini
jacks don't cut it !


The pro cards have more capabilities than what I would ever need but I
fear that they pro cards are geared toward 600 ohm balanced and I need
high impedance (~50k ohm) unbalanced as well as 600 ohms balanced.

Apparently you also don't realise that so-called '600 ohm' ( a misnomer
btw ) circuits work just fine with Hi-Z too.

If you have Hi-Z gear ( with its lower performance ) why are you
agonising over DACs ?


Graham



Graham, Sorry if i was a bit terse with the comment about 'not caring if
you believe me or not'. It was not directed at you.

I have some old hi-z gear that was fairly well designed. Preamp
distortion is at 0.02% and hum and noise at 90db or so. It has served me
well and continues to do so. For me to replace it would cost a few grand.
However, if I try to drive a low impedance (600 ohms or so) device with
my preamp, it causes the low frequencies to be rolled off. I have
experienced this same effect with other gear as well. I realize that a
low-Z source driving a Hi-Z load isn't a problem generally as 600 ohm
resistors are cheap. My amp has Hi-Z unbalanced inputs only but is fairly
decent as well. Distortion is better than 0.02% with hum and noise levels
at 100db or so. I see no reason to change the system and to do so would
be rather pricey.

I changed from a Denon DCD1520 CD player to a Nakamichi based unit that
uses twin stereo DACs in a parallel configuration. I was and sill am
quite pleased at the positive sound quality compared to the Denon. I also
notice that McIntosh's latest stand alone DAC features DAC's in parallel.
As a matter of fact they use 8 separate DACs in a twin parallel DAC
configuration. I am starting to build a PC based audio source and was
trying to find a sound card with the same positive attributes my CDP has
and it seemed that specifying dual DACs was a logical place to start. I
have listened to a few sound cards and the ones I listened to caused
listeners fatigue in varying degrees. I experience no listeners fatigue
while listening to the Nak. They also have varying levels of something I
call digital grunge as well. I realize that dual dacs have nothing to do
with grunge and everything to do with decoupling. The Nakamicki features
a choke and two caps at every chip's B+/VCC line and my opinion is that it
is those components that reduce the grunge.

As you might guess, I listen to classical music at least 90% of the time.
So you see, I have had good experiences with dual dacs in parallel and
as such I wanted to go with something similar.

r




--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



Don't forget that everything ever recorded was done on pro-audio gear,
not some audiophool ****.


Graham



Probably a good bit of advice. I have worked in the 'pro' field before
but it has been a while. "Broadcast Quality" was a joke. It might be
better now with the advent of HDTV, etc. but it wasn't that long ago that
the labeling 'Broadcast Quality' meant mediocre performance but rugged as
hell.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:04:23 GMT, "Rich.Andrews"
wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

R wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:qZ-dnTNPju7CgF_cRVn-
:

"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message


I don't believe the count is relevant. The point is that putting
two dacs in parallel lowers distortion and I feel that if I am going
to spend some money, I might as well spend a bit more and get the
best.

In that case, forget sound cards and use a Benchmark DAC-1.

In audio interfaces, AFAIK "The Best" is the LynxTWO.

An input impedance of 24 ohms balanced and 12 ohms unbalanced? Isn't
that a bit low?

Apparently you can't read a spec sheet.

Input Impedance Balanced mode: 24 kW , Unbalanced mode: 12 kW ( the
ohms symbol appears as W in plain text btw ).

http://www.lynxstudio.com/lynxtwospecs.html

IIRC - most modern converters work differentially internally anyway. The
inputs and outputs on the converters I'm currently using are
differential and most others I've looked at are too. Those that are
'single ended' usually have an internal inverting stage that converts
them to internally differential.

You're worrying about non-issues.

http://lynxstudio.com/reviews/LynxTWOBrochureLoRes.pdf

Clearly says "Unbalanced Mode: 12 greek omega"

That means 12 ohms, not 12k ohms.

What were you saying about reading a spec sheet?

You're reading different sheets. The input impedance is 24k ohms
balanced, the one you quote is simply a misprint.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:22:21 GMT, "Rich.Andrews"
wrote:

Yeah. But is it a marketing ploy, or is it actually solving a real
problem?


As far as I am concerned it does make a difference. Don't believe me?
Fine don't. I really don't care. Either the card I am looking for exists
or it doesn't. Unfortunately it appears it does not. So I am going to
have to start from scratch pouring over spec sheets.

The pro cards have more capabilities than what I would ever need but I fear
that they pro cards are geared toward 600 ohm balanced and I need high
impedance (~50k ohm) unbalanced as well as 600 ohms balanced.

Pro cards have very simple capabilities. They accept a line level (or
digital) signal, feed it into the computer. Output the same. How is
that more capability than you need?

You take care of interfacing instruments and other sources by using a
mixer or preamp.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:06:16 GMT, R wrote:

I
have listened to a few sound cards and the ones I listened to caused
listeners fatigue in varying degrees.

This is where we may be able to make real progress. Which cards
have you listened to?

"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message


http://lynxstudio.com/reviews/LynxTWOBrochureLoRes.pdf

Clearly says "Unbalanced Mode: 12 greek omega"

So, it does.

That means 12 ohms, not 12k ohms.

Agreed, thats what it says.

It's obviously a typo.

I think a wee bit of common sense is needed. No card this widely used and
respected could have a gross fault like this.

I have one and the Zin is clearly not 12 ohms. If I had to guess based on
hands-on use, I would have said at least 6 K ohms.

I not infrequently use my LynxTWO with a NHTPro PVC attenuator which has a
high enough output impedance that it would be totally unusable with a device
that had a 12 or 24 ohm Zin.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:6irwd.31421$Ae.21265@fed1read05

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"R" wrote in message


Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:45:20 GMT, "Rich.Andrews"
wrote:

What I mean by parallel is that the data stream for one channel
feeds 2 dacs at once and the resultant output of the dacs are tied
together. Many of the high end CD players and D-A units use that
circuit topology as it lowers the distortion levels.

Thinking back for a while, I remember the days when doubling up DAC
chips was sorta popular.

There was even a tweak that stacked two DAC chips on top of each
other. This kinda worked because many DAC chhips of the era had high
impedance outputs, so that their outputs were summed at the input to
the following stage.

The net effect was that the output voltage was doubled (6 dB), while
any internally generated uncorrelated noise increased by only 3 dB.

Care to explain this voltage doubling claim of yours Arny?

I did. Scott I thought you had an EE or its equivalent. To a EE the phrase
"DAC chips of the era had high
impedance outputs" would say all that needed to be said.

I'll spell it out for youin more detail. Certain DAC chip analog outputs
provide a high source impedance. They are typically loaded by buffer stages
with far lower input impedances. Doubling the number of identical current
sources doubles the output voltage of the buffer stage. Stacking two DAC
chips doubles the number of more-or-less identical current sources.

Maybe Sander can explain it to you Scott, if you need further instruction in
basic electronics.

I smell more snake oil than hi-rez in PC/ABX.

As usual Scott, your ignorance of basic electronics is getting in your way
of seeing the truth. I won't comment further about your consummate and
debilitating arrogance.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message

ScottW wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"R" wrote in message

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:45:20 GMT, "Rich.Andrews"
wrote:

What I mean by parallel is that the data stream for one channel
feeds 2 dacs at once and the resultant output of the dacs are
tied together. Many of the high end CD players and D-A units
use that circuit topology as it lowers the distortion levels.

Thinking back for a while, I remember the days when doubling up DAC
chips was sorta popular.

There was even a tweak that stacked two DAC chips on top of each
other. This kinda worked because many DAC chhips of the era had
high impedance outputs, so that their outputs were summed at the
input to the following stage.

The net effect was that the output voltage was doubled (6 dB),
while any internally generated uncorrelated noise increased by only
3 dB.

Care to explain this voltage doubling claim of yours Arny? I smell
more snake oil than hi-rez in PC/ABX.

Just stepping in here.....

Those old converter chips were current output. 2 chips = twice the
current = double the voltage for the same output stage following it.

Exactly.

The noise only rises by 3dB since noise isn't a coherent signal (
it's random ). Each converter produces its own random noise so there
is an overall improvement in S/N of 3dB. You need to understand how
signals sum to properly follow this bit.

Thinking about it, Scott must be a "Software Engineer", not a true EE or ME.
I' easily qualified to pass my self off as any of the above, but I admit
it - I wince when taking on the label of software engineer even though its
what I've done the most during my life.

Standard output voltage can be obtained by halving the feedback
resistor value in the op-amp following the DAC.

This would be a wise move, but I can't recalling any of the tweek articles
suggesting this refinement.

Here are some examples of relevant tweek articles:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread/t-8108.html

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...arallel +dacs

http://www.dddac.de/ma_dac21.htm

http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=87747


This helps reduce
noise a tiny bit too since lower value resistors have less thermal
noise.

It's all futile with CD players because even the better $1 DACs have as much
or more resolution than the format allows, not to mention the limitations of
real-world recordings.

"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message


As I see it, in a balanced audio setup the positive dac output would
be the plus side and the inverted dac output would be the negative
side. The common mode noise would be diminished in such a
configuration.

Random noise generated by either DAC, being uncorrelated, won't cancel and
won't even be diminished. However, it will add geometrically, not
algebraically. The signal adds algebraically for a net 3 dB improvement in
dynamic range, all other sources of noise excluded.

What cancels is even-order nonlinear distortion. Unfortunately, the best
modern DACs already have almost none of this.

"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message

Laurence Payne wrote in
:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:12:20 GMT, "Rich.Andrews"
wrote:

There are good and bad-sounding cards out there. But I wouldn't
worry too much about this particular bit of snake-oil. You've
picked it up from an audiophile review or advert? Come on over
to the pro audio world. You can still spend a lot of money if you
insist, but you'll get more for it than in the audiophile arena :-)


I have actually picked it up from reviewing schematics of CD
players and stand alone DACs that I own or have considered owning.

Yeah. But is it a marketing ploy, or is it actually solving a real
problem?

As far as I am concerned it does make a difference.

Reality means nothing, right? Do you even believe in the existence of
reality?


Don't believe me?

I believe that some people think that if they perceive it, it must exist
shared concepts of reality and the accepted laws of physics notwithstanding.

Fine don't. I really don't care. Either the card I am looking for
exists or it doesn't. Unfortunately it appears it does not. So I am
going to have to start from scratch pouring over spec sheets.

The purported refinement was yet another example of the tyranny of the
attitude that "As far as I am concerned it does make a difference.", reality
and the generally accepted laws of physics notwithstanding.

The pro cards have more capabilities than what I would ever need but
I fear that they pro cards are geared toward 600 ohm balanced and I
need high impedance (~50k ohm) unbalanced as well as 600 ohms
balanced.

Are you talking about input impedances? If so, you might be interested in
something like running the LynxTWO in -10 dB mode, and simply putting a 39K
resistor in series with one of its input terminals and either grounding the
other. The extra gain pretty well compensates for the losses in the series
resistor.



r

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:06:16 GMT, R wrote:

I
have listened to a few sound cards and the ones I listened to caused
listeners fatigue in varying degrees.

This is where we may be able to make real progress. Which cards
have you listened to?

I fear I see where this might be headed. Our correspondent might favor
rolled-of highs.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message


Don't forget that everything ever recorded was done on pro-audio
gear, not some audiophool ****.

Well, except some boutique recordings. Mapleshade, anyone? ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message


http://lynxstudio.com/reviews/LynxTWOBrochureLoRes.pdf

Clearly says "Unbalanced Mode: 12 greek omega"

So, it does.

That means 12 ohms, not 12k ohms.

Agreed, thats what it says.

It's obviously a typo.

I think a wee bit of common sense is needed. No card this widely used
and respected could have a gross fault like this.

I have one and the Zin is clearly not 12 ohms. If I had to guess based
on
hands-on use, I would have said at least 6 K ohms.

I not infrequently use my LynxTWO with a NHTPro PVC attenuator which has
a high enough output impedance that it would be totally unusable with a
device that had a 12 or 24 ohm Zin.





I thought it was rather unusual to have such a low input impedance. The
Marketing department strikes again. (:)

r

Laurence Payne wrote in
:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:06:16 GMT, R wrote:

I
have listened to a few sound cards and the ones I listened to caused
listeners fatigue in varying degrees.

This is where we may be able to make real progress. Which cards
have you listened to?


TO be honest it has been a couple of years since I looked at PC audio cards
and those aren't made anymore. As a matter of fact the one rather pricey one
I listened to isn't made either. As such I am going to have to start from
scratch.

Maybe I will just get a stand alone DAC and run aes/ebu to it. It might be
easier than getting everything all in one card. The disadvantage to that is
I know almost nothing about AES/EBU and any issues I may have with it.

r

Dont butte in ya limey.... I wanted to lead Arny to explaining this
meaningless statement "DAC chhips of the era had high impedance
outputs, so that their outputs were summed at the input to the
following stage."
Now you ****ed it all up...... I hope you find God.

ScottW

"Arny Krueger" said:

I'll spell it out for youin more detail. Certain DAC chip analog outputs
provide a high source impedance. They are typically loaded by buffer stages
with far lower input impedances. Doubling the number of identical current
sources doubles the output voltage of the buffer stage. Stacking two DAC
chips doubles the number of more-or-less identical current sources.

Maybe Sander can explain it to you Scott, if you need further instruction in
basic electronics.

Actually, I don't see a problem at all with output impedances of DAC
chips.

What follows is either a I/V conversion or a higher impedance opamp
input.

Now, about the quality of said opamp...... ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

R wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:


Don't forget that everything ever recorded was done on pro-audio gear,
not some audiophool ****.


Graham


Probably a good bit of advice. I have worked in the 'pro' field before
but it has been a while. "Broadcast Quality" was a joke. It might be
better now with the advent of HDTV, etc. but it wasn't that long ago that
the labeling 'Broadcast Quality' meant mediocre performance but rugged as
hell.

Probably different in the US to the UK. At one time for sure, UK broadcasters
were obliged to purchase gear that complied with certain technical
performance requirements. Both the BBC and the Independent stations purchase
high end gear like Neve and SSL consoles as well as more routine stuff.

When I see a shot of a US radio station on film or TV with the VUs 'pegging'
I cringe. That just doesn't happen here. VUs aren't used much either - always
peak reading meters where it's important.


Graham

ScottW wrote:

Dont butte in ya limey.... I wanted to lead Arny to explaining this
meaningless statement "DAC chhips of the era had high impedance
outputs, so that their outputs were summed at the input to the
following stage."
Now you ****ed it all up...... I hope you find God.

Well.... Arny was right.

Current outputs are indeed high impedance. You can common any number of
them up into an inverting stage that acts as a current to voltage
converter.


Graham

In rec.audio.tech Rich.Andrews wrote:

TO be honest it has been a couple of years since I looked at PC audio cards
and those aren't made anymore. As a matter of fact the one rather pricey one
I listened to isn't made either. As such I am going to have to start from
scratch.

Maybe I will just get a stand alone DAC and run aes/ebu to it. It might be
easier than getting everything all in one card. The disadvantage to that is
I know almost nothing about AES/EBU and any issues I may have with it.

My two bits worth. Don't worry about the DAC. Worry about the analog
components on the card, the shielding, the source quality, but the DAC is
likely to be the LAST item in the chain to happreciably damage the sound.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:57:40 GMT, "Rich.Andrews"
wrote:

This is where we may be able to make real progress. Which cards
have you listened to?


TO be honest it has been a couple of years since I looked at PC audio cards
and those aren't made anymore. As a matter of fact the one rather pricey one
I listened to isn't made either. As such I am going to have to start from
scratch.

Maybe I will just get a stand alone DAC and run aes/ebu to it. It might be
easier than getting everything all in one card. The disadvantage to that is
I know almost nothing about AES/EBU and any issues I may have with it.


OK. Accepting that it was 2 years ago, what cards did you listen to?

You're still looking at "audiophile" solutions. They are designed
with one aim - to make you spend a lot. Pro audio also has this
aim, but it generally has to deliver as well ;-)

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


ScottW wrote:

Dont butte in ya limey.... I wanted to lead Arny to explaining this
meaningless statement "DAC chhips of the era had high impedance
outputs, so that their outputs were summed at the input to the
following stage."
Now you ****ed it all up...... I hope you find God.

Well.... Arny was right.

Let Sander explain it to you It was a nit but it was my nit and u
buggered it. Now I have to find a new nit and I don't have any time.

BTW, bugger Arcam. They can't even direct me to a US authorized service
center... they defer service to the friggin distributor. I bet if I dig
into this they have stacked their ringdacs with insufficient output
impedance so they don't ring properly.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


ScottW wrote:

Dont butte in ya limey.... I wanted to lead Arny to explaining this
meaningless statement "DAC chhips of the era had high impedance
outputs, so that their outputs were summed at the input to the
following stage."
Now you ****ed it all up...... I hope you find God.

Well.... Arny was right.

Let Sander explain it to you It was a nit but it was my nit and u
buggered it. Now I have to find a new nit and I don't have any time.

Ohhhh, sorry mate ! ;-)


BTW, bugger Arcam. They can't even direct me to a US authorized service
center... they defer service to the friggin distributor. I bet if I dig
into this they have stacked their ringdacs with insufficient output
impedance so they don't ring properly.

Uh ? Some elaborate joke that went over my head ?

Modern DACs are normally low output impedance, voltage outputs types anyway.
Current output types were the norm a long time back.


Graham