Crack at Stop

[PeterSt]

Carsten,

Quick question :
Must I assume that with all your previous attempts you used Engine#3 ?
And that your report in the last post is about Engine#4 ?

Please answer this precisely.
And yes, sorry about that XXEngine3.exe which looks confusing. The sound engine is just called like that (always).

One more thing :

softer crack means that the last buffer gets repeat with alittle lower volume, but very distorted and the crack is still audible, but a little softer

It seems logical that you always use the same track for this testing. Can you try two others and tell about that "very distorted" ? I mean, nothing should be distorted at all ... (unless it is about the end-start connecting of that last buffer and e.g 100 very fast repeats make that "distorted sound" indeed)

Hey, great list. I will try to make sense out of if after knowing the answers to above questions ...

Peter

[stefanobilliani]

Hi Stefano,

So, in the version I use, PA is not possible outside of Arc Prediction ...

Thank you Stefano,
Peter

So from the above I should read that if Arc Prediction is engaged but the reproduction is set to say 32 bit and 44100Hz PA is out of Arc Prediction anyway ...

stefano

[stefanobilliani]

   The Bryston don't pass DC ...
very loud crack. and at normal volumes just way too loud and scary.  I can't afford to damage the system so...
So I'm off the PA until I/we figure this out. well. 

Better out of PA for now , yes . IF it is also a crack and not only a plop it is to be considered a bit demaging in my view .

I am building amplifiers from ten years now , and somehow I do know a bit of them . But also your dacs may be at risk .

So , being it a crack or not it is to be understood that is not only DC . That fenomenal generates a spread of frequencies up to 40KHZ , which can also be bad karma for your Tweeters .


Below find the picture of the spectrum plot referred to the previous (simulation Peter ? ) example posted by me .
The analysis of the spectrum is made just when the thing happens , during the drifting .

Stefano
Stefano

[stefanobilliani]

Hey Carsten,

You can just as well use Inverted Phase because your chain inverts it somewhere (often DACs do)

Peter

For example: the TDA 1543 invert the phase as well as a TDA1541 . That was made from project I believe since Philips would always engage an OP amp in the place of the I/V converter wich would invert the phase itself (for amplification topology reasons ) .So in that case I know where the chain inverts . The case of TDA1543 and 1541 with OP amp I/V conversion would be 2 times phase invertion .

But lets say I build a balanced dac out of a I2S signal ... and I know where it inverts ....  I would have 2 polarity signals ... right?

Maybe I am missing something here about the difference between Polarity and Phase .

Stefano

[PeterSt]

Hey Stefano,

[this responds to the picture with the FFT graph; not to your last post]

Yesterday I wrote you a post which became more and more complicated and I decided not to post it.

Today, with your new graph, I must really try to let you refrain from judging (and posting) based up wrong "data". So, I already told that your graph exactly shows what Carsten will have on his hands, and this is "wrong" hence not intended. So, now we can try to proceed on what's wrong in the base anyway, but to me this seems useless *and* confusing.

That it happens like that is another story and it is to find out why. But "explaining" like you do what happens with Phase Alignment ... please don't.

Btw, that 40KHz will be about the end-front connecting of the buffer and the steeper transient occurring because of it. And otherwise it is about the upsampling or whatever (like DSD origine).

So , being it a crack or not it is to be understood that is not only DC . That fenomenal generates a spread of frequencies up to 40KHZ , which can also be bad karma for your Tweeters .

So, don't please.

Regards,
Peter

[stefanobilliani]

Hey Stefano,

[this responds to the picture with the FFT graph; not to your last post]

Yesterday I wrote you a post which became more and more complicated and I decided not to post it.

Today, with your new graph, I must really try to let you refrain from judging (and posting) based up wrong "data". So, I already told that your graph exactly shows what Carsten will have on his hands, and this is "wrong" hence not intended. So, now we can try to proceed on what's wrong in the base anyway, but to me this seems useless *and* confusing.

That it happens like that is another story and it is to find out why. But "explaining" like you do what happens with Phase Alignment ... please don't.

Btw, that 40KHz will be about the end-front connecting of the buffer and the steeper transient occurring because of it. And otherwise it is about the upsampling or whatever (like DSD origine).

So , being it a crack or not it is to be understood that is not only DC . That fenomenal generates a spread of frequencies up to 40KHZ , which can also be bad karma for your Tweeters .

So, don't please.

Regards,
Peter

It is perfectly ok with me Peter , really . Feel free to delete the post . I am looking elsewere right now , and I made 2 other post to try to have some explanations from you .

stefano

PS . I understand it is confusing .

[PeterSt]

But lets say I build a balanced dac out of a I2S signal ... and I know where it inverts ....  I would have 2 polarity signals ... right?

Maybe I am missing something here about the difference between Polarity and Phase .

Well, maybe I don't even see where it is related, or what you want to pose with it. So :

Polarity, in my view, can be seen as plus and minus and a swap between them. Swap it, and the phase will be in reverse order (180 degrees). Plus becomes minus and minus becomes plus.

When you have a differentially setup device (which could be called "balanced") then one channel "contains" or outputs two signals of opposite phase. So, here too a 180 degree difference. If you swap the "input polarity" to this (so, plus and minus), both signals will change phase with 180 degrees with a net effect of nothing. But, this is a moot thing, because nobody is doing this. So, we could swap plus and minus on a loudspeaker terminal, but nobody is going to swap the "hot" and "ground" of an input signal to the DAC (or from DAC to amp). But it is not about that, in the context we talk here;

When we'd look at one of those "balanced" signals, its has phase characteristics within itself. So, for example, when we hit a drum, the signal should get positive (at first) for the normal signal (wire). This is the "absolute phase" when it is correct (the story is miles longer but never mind). At the same time, the other signal wire also gets positive at this same drum hit, although we tend to say it is "negative" because the voltage is. Anyway, the wave expands to the opposite direction of the normal ("plus") wire;
When we'd change the input polarity, all what happens is that what happened in the positive wire now happens in the negative wire and the other way around ...

... But when we change the Absolute Phase of the input, per wire the phase changes. And now a hit on the drum extends to the "negative side".

When all is wired correctly, and assumed the recording is correct as well, the DC level - which represents the average AC level ! - will be positive. This is because a transient rises fast while a decay never is fast. So, net = positive.
Changing the input polarity to a differential system doesn't change a thing to that. Changing Absolute Phase does ...

Something like that ?
Peter

[PeterSt]

PS . I understand it is confusing .

I just finished the ToolTip text to a new little feature regarding PA and I had to do that three times over. Just because I got it the wrong way around. That's why I didn't post that "too confusing" post either, because it is so easy to make mistakes here. And really, when you look at the table from Carsten, assumed he has all right like using Engine#4, it is totally clear how things relate; it is consistent, and no way Carsten will have made mistakes there. But don't ask me to explain it, no matter how consistent it is. It is too damn difficult, even for me.

... Bit because I can't explain it, something will be going on what I miss. Should be your situation too, because your first screenshot IS NOT RIGHT. So ... *that* is important because it must be worked out. And when it is correct you can have all the screenshots you want with the comments you want.

Well, that is what I was trying to say from the start to you ...

Regards,
Peter

[stefanobilliani]

PS . I understand it is confusing .

I just finished the ToolTip text to a new little feature regarding PA and I had to do that three times over. Just because I got it the wrong way around. That's why I didn't post that "too confusing" post either, because it is so easy to make mistakes here. And really, when you look at the table from Carsten, assumed he has all right like using Engine#4, it is totally clear how things relate; it is consistent, and no way Carsten will have made mistakes there. But don't ask me to explain it, no matter how consistent it is. It is too damn difficult, even for me.

... Bit because I can't explain it, something will be going on what I miss. Should be your situation too, because your first screenshot IS NOT RIGHT. So ... *that* is important because it must be worked out. And when it is correct you can have all the screenshots you want with the comments you want.

Well, that is what I was trying to say from the start to you ...

Regards,
Peter

Hahaha , ... good . 

[PeterSt]

Forgot this one :

So from the above I should read that if Arc Prediction is engaged but the reproduction is set to say 32 bit and 44100Hz PA is out of Arc Prediction anyway ...

Well, that's a good one. So, for the upcoming 0.9z-7-3 a few things changed, but this one stayed (active). Just because I wasn't sure and didn't have time at that particular moment to check. But what happens ? (I now checked) PA is NOT engaged, but because of that "mechanical" thing I talked about earlier, it engages at the end, and when it's finished with that, we're out of data. TICK.
... No, I did not talk about that "mechanical" thing, because that was in the post I did not post. So, at the end things are "balanced out" as should, but since nothing really happened, the balancing out goes in the wrong direction; it engages while it should ... do nothing here.
Anyway, we can call this a bug for sure on my side. Similar as that Engine#3 just doesn't do a thing with it FOR THE END OF IT, while it was (is in pre 0.9z-7-3) allowed to activate PA for Engine#3. So, in this case it will engage it, but here no "balancing out" happens. So, a bug, this time for allowing it to (set by you and) activate.

And there can be more of these bugs.

But since I now have the example of 44100, which again would just resemble what you see in your first screenshot, I can happily build in a check for such a situation. I mean, since I can copy the behaviour now, I can counter attack it.

This is how your posts help ...
Thanks,
Peter

[PeterSt]

I found the whole damn culprit !!

Okay, don't hit me. The whole stupid thing only works at 44100 into 352800 or 705600. Didn't check 88200 and other bases, but it is to be regarded that it just doesn't work for most of you. Never mind you thought it sounded better ...

Djeezz ...

So, here's that "mechanical" thing at play, I talked about;
It does not engage, tries to "balance out" towards the end, but there it goes the wrong way. And when done ... TICK. Nothing more and nothing less than your picture shows Stefano.

Well, can I dedicate the solution to you ?

Carsten, obviously - hold all your horses.

Oh boy.

[stefanobilliani]

I found the whole damn culprit !!

Well, can I dedicate the solution to you ?

Oh boy.

Of course you can , hahaha . Big Smile .

Stefano

[CaOd]

I found the whole damn culprit !!

Okay, don't hit me. The whole stupid thing only works at 44100 into 352800 or 705600. Didn't check 88200 and other bases, but it is to be regarded that it just doesn't work for most of you. Never mind you thought it sounded better ...

Djeezz ...

So, here's that "mechanical" thing at play, I talked about;
It does not engage, tries to "balance out" towards the end, but there it goes the wrong way. And when done ... TICK. Nothing more and nothing less than your picture shows Stefano.

Well, can I dedicate the solution to you ?

Carsten, obviously - hold all your horses.

Oh boy.

I don't get it, but never mind, as long as you know what to do, Peter. I can live with the status quo without damaging my equipment.

Btw, I had always engine#4 on, I do KS, so I cannot even chose, XXHE always puts it automatically at engine#4.

And yes, with another piece of music it shows just the repeat of the buffer and then the soft crack (or is this a tick by now?) at the end, no distortion. I played CD resolution 4xupsampled in XXHE to 176kHz, never tried highres material up to now. Should I or are you done?

Thanks Carsten

[PeterSt]

No, I'm done Carsten; It's all solved. Thanks for all of your time ...

[SeVeReD]

Are you saying this is solved for my situation as well?  This is no tick, or soft crack (hehe at the levels I play) but a sharp, harsh, loud, speaker-damaging CRACK (although just checked all drivers and they all miraculously work, even the super tweeters... I may not hit you Peter love, but my Drivers want to kick your ass hehe)
I also play mostly 44.1 material going to 176.4 @ 2048

Hope you're talking about a fix for the above situation. I hate to be out of the innovation loop.


edit, and wow that was quick with the new version just while I was posting,,, must have been a simple fix hehe ya right

ALSO
Just to be clear to the noobs out there.  I've been in this experiment with Peter for a long time.  It has always been a Try At Your Own Risk, and I'll take that risk.  If it does go horribly wrong I (and you) will have to deal.  I'll just start over buying what I can.  There were more warnings than usual with PA and I knew the risks.  If you really can't risk, wait for lots of time to go by before trying a new version or want to be perfectly safe go try foobar.  From the beginning this has been Peter's player he is developing for himself, he's just using us for further development and confirmation (the more ears the better to help him make a the best for himself).  We are lucky he decided to let us in on this sometimes risky game.