This should be illegal… PC Audio Product Scam

[williamcll]

With the money spent on all these you might as well go listen to a live performance. 

[ihatesleepyhead]

36 minutes ago, sub68 said:

its a rode model.

NTH-100 and thank you.

[sub68]

8 minutes ago, williamcll said:

With the money spent on all these you might as well go listen to a live performance. 

Bet those type of audiophiles would find something wrong.

I actually like live so...

[Psittac]

3 hours ago, ihatesleepyhead said:

What were the wired headphones Linus was wearing?  I didn't see them mentioned in the description.  

Rode NTH-100 and I'm super excited to see them on the LTT team.  I love most of my headphones but these ones tickle my pickle something fierce.  They're sort of "consumer" in their sound profile being bold and punchy but not bloated in any way.  Also they sound good on almost any device, phones, onboard or a $700 dac and amp.  They do sound better on the higher end stuff but they don't lose as much to cheaper equipment like other headphones can.  I call it an "opaque" headphone, sort of the opposite of the HD6xx which is very transparent (IE responds very well to improvements in the chain)

 

10 hours ago, Quasido said:

Putting myself on the line to defend a different product that works for me. The iFi iDefender. I had terrible GPU noise in my headphones plugged into my DAC when my active studio monitors were plugged into the mains which disappeared when I unplugged them. However I had bought an individually switched extension lead so I don't have to keep swapping plugs so I don't want to leave them unplugged. There are probably much better products/companies than what I bought but it allows the USB data to get to my DAC from my PC with power from my phone charger, thus breaking the earth loop that was going through the USB power.

 

There are other USB isolators on amazon but those only seemed to support a part of the USB 2 spec and only 100 mA power.

 

I have the ifi isilencer+ and this was recommended by an audiophile community when I had a ground loop problem that I Thought was on the USB side.  It didn't solve the problem because it ended up being something else, but I have noticed no degradation in sound quality with it between my PC and DAC.  In fact I don't even remember if it's still plugged in.

 

 

When I had a ton of noise like gpu whine coil whine what ever you want to call it I spent at least a year hunting for a solution.  What I found was that with a different psu (went to a high end corsair off the tier list on here) the coil whine went away.  This was after my Antec (lower tier Seasonic rebrand) popped and luckily didn't take a single thing with it.  Then when the Antec RMA came in the noise was gone with that one too.  I was mostly using XLR at this time which removed the noise so I can't remember what exact order of operations it was.  But one time I switched back to single ended and the noise was back.  Loooooooong story short it ended up being the cheap 4 to 1 or 1 to 4 RCA splitter/switcher that was back feeding even up stream into the single ended side of the dac/amp combo.  Once I removed the splitter/switcher the sound went away. (sorry for the incoherent tone in this section)

 

I would love to see the LTT labs team tackle something in the hobby that so far as I know is unsolvable.  It's the dreaded TRRS headphone and mic combo cables.  I have yet to find a headset with this solution that didn't backfeed the output into the input once it reaches a certain threshold.  Not even my beloved NTH-100m is free from this design flaw.  It's not the onboard solution like I used to suspect because I ran it off a schiit fulla and had the problem.  I think it's the shared ground.

 

Oh another video idea, pure galvanic isolation.  I did this with the Pi2Aes (there are other products that do this I believe) which is an audio hat that goes onto a raspberry pi and allows you to recieve among other things a wireless signal.  This way there is no physical connection between the PC and the audio setup.  It's pricey but it worked.  I shelved it eventually because I could only get audio and couldn't be bothered to figure out a way to transmit the entire desktop sound to it.  Plus I solved my ground loop problem as mentioned.

[Beerzerker]

10 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

But but but it's Teflon coated, the data electrons will just slide right through at max speed! 

Need max flow speed?
You don't need no stinkin cable - You can use this for making things pass right through at max speed and best of all, it's a "Blowout" deal meaning it's CHEEEP-CHEEEP-CHEEEP!
Guaranteed results too!
Get some today!

[Plermpel]

Still, this is a big issue.
Even with a good DAC, you have quite a lot of noise. Espeically on newer systems with a lot of power draw, I feel like this is getting much worse. The noise from the video card VRMs is not only disturbing audio quallity but also video signal. On my 980, 1080Ti, I could easily transfer, 4K 60Hz over a 10m copper HDMI cable, the audio quallity over HDMI, was allready noticably worse on the 10 series, but no chance at all on a 3090 with the same cable, needed to get an optical cable, and I feel like those suck in general...

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

11 hours ago, papajo said:

It was a random eye diagram to serve as a visual aid to where I was getting at I did not meant to use it as a reference. 

Having that said I am not going to pretend that I know this stuff I am not an engineer working at micron or samsung etc. 

You don't have to be an engineer at a memory manufacturer to know how to read an eye diagram though. Now if we were going to talk about things like BERTs, that's more intricate to grasp. However, I think it's very easy to draw incorrect conclusions from the whitepapers you're most likely reading.

 

11 hours ago, papajo said:

But being a hobbyst overclocker I dwelled a little deeper on how these thingies work and I wouldnt be so negative in believing that filtering couldnt change anything I mean the basic idea of bit flipping in DDR4 can result into a cleaner signal just because when most of the bits are high (cause of the characteristic of the POD being high then nor current flows) the distortion is lower 


(this is actually a screenshot of what I am talking about and not just a random graph for visual aid, notice that the "X"s are much smaller/tighter which means less time variation and thus jitter which I presume could make the difference e.g in reaching 3800 or failing to do so -given that same cpu and ram in a different mobo can reach it at a given temp and voltage- ) 

I think you're mixing up a few things here, you're linking techniques used to reduce power dissipation with techniques used to improve signalling. Bus inversion *can* lead to improved switching times, but it's by no means a guarantee when handling quasi random data - you'd have to combine it with particular encoding strategies to get a consistent effect out of this one, and as far as I know DDR4 doesn't bother with any of that, though I must admit the last memory controller I implemented myself was for SDRAM. At the same time, psuedo open drain *can* be used to increase bus speeds, but it's main goal is reducing power dissipation, it really allows you to cut down on the drive strength. Which is a major concern when you drive up the speeds, because driving high currents at high frequencies is somewhat problematic for a variety of reasons. But a lot of the diagrams you'll find in white papers and articles require about a page worth of footnotes to list all the relevant conditions under which these conclusions apply.

 

The reality is that if you think adding some extra capacitors in the slot nearby is going to do anything, that's a bit of a joke from an electronics point of view. To simplify the issue in layman terms: every time you switch a bit you got to dump a bucket of charge into the transmission line, this bucket of charge obviously comes from the power supply. Now imagine that you're doing this twice per clock cycle at 1600 MHz, given that electricity on average travels at about half the speed of light, you can cover a distance of about 4.6 cm in that half clock cycle (300ish ps). So obviously drawing that power from the PSU is pretty much a no go, heck at 4.6 cm you'll be hard pressed to pull it from the motherboard, so you got to provide local charge storage under the form of capacitors on the PCB directly next to the memory chip doing the driving. And yes, you're now going to say that you can go directly down to the connector and directly to the other memory slot, but the inductance on that line is seriously going to hamper that plan. It's gotten to the point where we're integrating capacitors inside the packages of some digital (memory) devices because the lines on the circuit board got too long, so the idea that a capacitor - that's most likely several clock cycles away to put it in not entirely correct terms - is going to significantly improve bus performance is a bit far-fetched from my point of view.

 

As to why some motherboards support higher frequencies, and others don't. Let me rephrase it in a way that might cause a chuckle amongst electronics engineers: "Which motherboard manufacturer bothered to pay Keysight for an ADS license, and who just assumed that Altium does a good enough job? Find out on next week's episode of Dragonball Z!"

[simpsonfan409]

Please do a noise floor test of expensive motherboards from well known brands who claim to have high quality audio vs a low budget mobo + external dac amp

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

9 hours ago, bluehawk said:

Let's bring back sound cards, going to slot in my sound blaster

Too bad the current generation soundblaster cards suck donkeyballs, but that's an entirely separate topic. I wouldn't be surprised if there's an entire thread on this forum dedicated to how shitty their drivers are. If you want you can buy mine of my hands at half cost, I've been looking to get rid of it.

  

14 hours ago, manikyath said:

they do absolutely nothing against EMI inside the case. by design the audio traces are right next to the GPU's PCIe slot.. i dont like this design and i dont understand why they keep doing this.. but it is how it is i suppose.

You're very wrong here, the PCIe lanes are generally kept between power and ground planes to form a controlled impedance strip line. This is then caged in at the side using (burried) vias spaced closely enough to basically form a faraday cage if there are EMI concerns. Additionally, the actual currents flowing on a PCIe bus and the voltage being switched are quite small. Far more likely culprits are switch mode regulators surrounding the CPU, but that's also quite trivial to shield from if the designers aren't complete idiots. Many of the audio artefacts people are hearing are coupled in from external sources, like the person above who mentioned shoddy grounding/earthing. And that is something a good motherboard or soundcard design can in fact shield against.

 

But in short, if the interference generated by the PCIe bus's proximity to the sound output generates audible artefacts, the motherboard is never going to past EMC testing.

[arad]

Yay! This was one of my suggestions in the video suggestion forum. Thanks for doing it now!

[manikyath]

21 minutes ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

You're very wrong here, the PCIe lanes are generally kept between power and ground planes to form a controlled impedance strip line. This is then caged in at the side using (burried) vias spaced closely enough to basically form a faraday cage if there are EMI concerns. Additionally, the actual currents flowing on a PCIe bus and the voltage being switched are quite small. Far more likely culprits are switch mode regulators surrounding the CPU, but that's also quite trivial to shield from if the designers aren't complete idiots. Many of the audio artefacts people are hearing are coupled in from external sources, like the person above who mentioned shoddy grounding/earthing. And that is something a good motherboard or soundcard design can in fact shield against.

 

But in short, if the interference generated by the PCIe bus's proximity to the sound output generates audible artefacts, the motherboard is never going to past EMC testing.

they = the add-in boards for power filtering. as in, sticking a power filter into a pcie slot does nothing for the EMI the graphics card *IS DEFENATELY STILL* kicking out.

 

i'm well aware about board design, EMC testing, and separating digital tracks from analog signals.

 

and yes - it's all got past EMC testing, EMC testing is far more lenient than what you need to keep interference off a *microphone* channel, which by the way, are in the millivolt range, within centimeters of the GPU. EMC testing doesnt mean it cannot kick out *anything*, EMC testing means it needs to be below a certain treshold. EMC testing is also about "does it keep working", not about "is the noise floor higher".

 

like i said - i had noise on the microphone channel of my asus motherboard, i stuck tin foil between my asus motherboard and my asus GPU, and the noise was gone. there's no shady brands here, there's no "oh it must have been the power supply" here. why do you think motherboard manufacturers route the audio all the way down to the corner of the motherboard these days? because it's sensitive AF, and a GPU sitting right overtop will interfere with that.

 

it just comes down to "a certain amount of interference is acceptable", and where the limit of "acceptable" sits is different for regulations than it is for some users.. and those users like fixes for their solutions. if the fix is a tin can, the fix should be a tin can, not 200 bucks worth of snake oil capacitor boards "because it passed EMI regulations already".

[sub68]

10 hours ago, Psittac said:

Rode NTH-100 and I'm super excited to see them on the LTT team. 

and they are like 150 which isn't too bad, I havent heard those rodes but they make some very good audio stuff. 

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

2 hours ago, manikyath said:

they = the add-in boards for power filtering. as in, sticking a power filter into a pcie slot does nothing for the EMI the graphics card *IS DEFENATELY STILL* kicking out.

 

i'm well aware about board design, EMC testing, and separating digital tracks from analog signals.

 

and yes - it's all got past EMC testing, EMC testing is far more lenient than what you need to keep interference off a *microphone* channel, which by the way, are in the millivolt range, within centimeters of the GPU. EMC testing doesnt mean it cannot kick out *anything*, EMC testing means it needs to be below a certain treshold. EMC testing is also about "does it keep working", not about "is the noise floor higher".

 

like i said - i had noise on the microphone channel of my asus motherboard, i stuck tin foil between my asus motherboard and my asus GPU, and the noise was gone. there's no shady brands here, there's no "oh it must have been the power supply" here. why do you think motherboard manufacturers route the audio all the way down to the corner of the motherboard these days? because it's sensitive AF, and a GPU sitting right overtop will interfere with that.

 

it just comes down to "a certain amount of interference is acceptable", and where the limit of "acceptable" sits is different for regulations than it is for some users.. and those users like fixes for their solutions. if the fix is a tin can, the fix should be a tin can, not 200 bucks worth of snake oil capacitor boards "because it passed EMI regulations already".

If PCIe signalling radiated enough EMI to affect your microphone input, they would have serious issues meeting the PCIe specs, especially if they wish to run 4.0 anywhere near the usual speeds. Capacitive coupling shouldn't be possible, except from the connector (which is probably part of why it's now shielded on most newer motherboards I suspect) and the loop size between the differential pair shouldn't be big enough to introduce mV scale signals on anything external, and in common mode it shouldn't be able to generate a big enough current loop either. That leaves the power, which is mostly a responsibility of the PSU at that point if the decoupling near the PCIe connector was performed correctly. And something fairly thin like aluminium foil blocking it would indicate to me that it might very well be a grounding or PSU issue.

 

As to the location of the audio chip, if the PCIe devices were the issue, that'd be one of the worst possible places to put it. You are then literally required to run the traces up, in parallel with the PCIe bus, along half the length of the motherboard to get to the I/O shield. This will also significantly increase the loop size for the audio traces, making the problem even worse. The CPU's right side is usually taken up entirely by the RAM, towards the bottom you need all the board space you can get to route your PCIe bus, and the top and left periphery of the CPU are pretty much entirely taken up by voltage regulators at this point. So unless if you intend to move the CPU to the right, they most likely didn't have the space to put it in there anymore, making moving it to the bottom a pretty elegant solution given that audio isn't that demanding of an application compared to some of the other bits you need. Additionally, it keeps it away from the SMPSs feeding the CPU, which do actually kick up noise in the audible range.

 

But as to EMC testing not being sufficient, the issues usually arise when combining devices, so it's quite possible the test didn't catch it. But it'd be quite irresponsible of Asus if they didn't test for the influence on the motherboard audio if something radiates nearby within the legal limits.

[manikyath]

11 minutes ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

If PCIe signalling radiated enough EMI

i never said it was PCIe signalling.

 

you're arguing so far beside the point i'd need to put my visa in order to write a reply to the rest of it.

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

2 hours ago, manikyath said:

i never said it was PCIe signalling.

 

you're arguing so far beside the point i'd need to put my visa in order to write a reply to the rest of it.

Ok, then let me rephrase/summarize it in another way:

• It can't be from the PCIe data lanes.
• If it's from the PCIe power (through the card edge connector), it's probably the fault of the PSU.
• Moving the audio chip to the bottom left corner of the board most likely has nothing to do with the PCIe cards, it's probably due to the ever increasing voltage regulation and power supply needs of the PSUs.
• ASUS would have tested that the microphone input works well with the maximum incident radiated power listed in the various national standards if their test lab ain't run by idiots.
• It's quite unlikely that a GPU would radiate that much, and it's probably caused by an external grounding or PSU issue.

One bit I did forget to mention: it could potentially be something plugged into the GPU that is causing the grounding issue.

[manikyath]

49 minutes ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

• It can't be from the PCIe data lanes.
• If it's from the PCIe power (through the card edge connector), it's probably the fault of the PSU.
• Moving the audio chip to the bottom left corner of the board most likely has nothing to do with the PCIe cards, it's probably due to the ever increasing voltage regulation and power supply needs of the PSUs.
• ASUS would have tested that the microphone input works well with the maximum incident radiated power listed in the various national standards if their test lab ain't run by idiots.
• It's quite unlikely that a GPU would radiate that much, and it's probably caused by an external grounding or PSU issue.

- i dont think it is either

- i doubt it's from pcie power, thats partly why i say the cards probably wont do anything.

- it moves the sensitive components away from the most complex add-in card

- again... "within limits" <=> "within what i expect" it's faint but it's there, and/or may also be dependant on what sort of microphone you run.

- i dont know what aspect of the GPU would be the cause, and honestly i dont care. fact of the matter is, the noise was there, i applied a tinfoil hat, changed nothing else, and the noise was gone. (gone = within background noise on my mic)

 

you're still debating wether the noise can even be there.. i've got two clear points to prove that it exists:

- my board did it, as did many of the friends i've assisted with audio issues trough the years. it's usually a mix of "building on a budget", and "a particularly quiet microphone having to be boosted", but it exists none the less.

- the issue i'm describing is the VERY DAMN REASON motherboards now look like this: (note the outline in the silkscreen.. it's a damn marketing bullet point.)

[papajo]

On 3/15/2023 at 12:38 PM, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

Bus inversion *can* lead to improved switching times, but it's by no means a guarantee when handling quasi random data

It doesnt matter because nobody claimed that, what does matter though is the underlying truth that power conditioning does affect jitter, DBI's role isnt of course to condition power, it's role is to decrease consumption over time but that doesnt mean that what happens in actuality due to DBI being enabled is not serving as an indication that power conditioning can affect OC. 

When talking about abstractions one has to be able to connect the dots instead of trying to fight over semantics. 

E.g It is as if I was  giving as an example the droplets formed from a previously refrigerated cola can to suggest that condensation occurs when the air is cooled by something and you replying with "I think you are confusing things here coca cola does not refrigerate its beverages so that they can cause condensation" 

Yes it does not but while doing so for other reasons (to have a more pleasant beverage on a hot day) condensation occurs using the same logic one can see that although DBI's role is to reduce consumption over time by eliminating bits (by flipping them ) that consume more power it essentially does a form of power filtering despite this not being the intended purpose of its existence 

EDIT 

Actually (although again as I said this is the "tree" and not the "forest" but just since you brought it up) looking further into it, it turns out that it is not just an observation/byproduct made by me but engineers also see DBI as a power filtering technique (https://www.xilinx.com/publications/events/designcon/2016/slides-optimalddr4systemwithdata-to.pdf)

[RichardBirch]

The sad thing is that some audiophiles will go to insane levels to convince themselves this kinda stuff works. This person genuinely thinks his audio sounds better because Windows is running from a RAMdisk, and that different RAM might sound better. Bonkers.

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/54716-ramdisk-with-windows-server-20162019-configuration-guide/

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

20 minutes ago, papajo said:

It doesnt matter because nobody claimed that, what does matter though is the underlying truth that power conditioning does affect jitter, DBI's role isnt of course to condition power, it's role is to decrease consumption over time but that doesnt mean that what happens in actuality due to DBI being enabled is not serving as an indication that power conditioning can affect OC. 

When talking about abstractions one has to be able to connect the dots instead of trying to fight over semantics. 

E.g It is as if I was  giving as an example the droplets formed from a previously refrigerated cola can to suggest that condensation occurs when the air is cooled by something and you replying with "I think you are confusing things here coca cola does not refrigerate its beverages so that they can cause condensation" 

Yes it does not but while doing so for other reasons (to have a more pleasant beverage on a hot day) condensation occurs using the same logic one can see that although DBI's role is to reduce consumption over time by eliminating bits (by flipping them ) that consume more power it essentially does a form of power filtering despite this not being the intended purpose of its existence 

May I propose you go back to looking for LTT backpacks on aliexpress before you spout more nonsense? That's not power filtering at all, if you're going to invent your own meaning to words there's no point in talking about anything. 

 

16 hours ago, manikyath said:

- again... "within limits" <=> "within what i expect" it's faint but it's there, and/or may also be dependant on what sort of microphone you run.

- i dont know what aspect of the GPU would be the cause, and honestly i dont care. fact of the matter is, the noise was there, i applied a tinfoil hat, changed nothing else, and the noise was gone. (gone = within background noise on my mic)

A typical issue is a monitor being plugged into another circuit than the computer, it can cause currents to flow along what is normally considered a grounded shield, which isn't accounted for in most cases. A good PSU will help you deal with issues like this, a crummy one can make them worse. 

 

16 hours ago, manikyath said:

- my board did it, as did many of the friends i've assisted with audio issues trough the years. it's usually a mix of "building on a budget", and "a particularly quiet microphone having to be boosted", but it exists none the less.

And as to the noise being visible or audible, excuse me for my reluctance in going along with this line of reasoning, but I've seen folks misuse audio hardware more than a few times. They see that they have a 32 bit ADC, and they fully expect the nanovolt range to be clear. Or they hook up things with wild impedances, and are then surprised that they're sensitive to EMI.

 

16 hours ago, manikyath said:

- the issue i'm describing is the VERY DAMN REASON motherboards now look like this: (note the outline in the silkscreen.. it's a damn marketing bullet point.)

It ain't because they do it that it's a good idea or makes sense from a signal integrity point of view, audio products are pretty much a go to example for such things.

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

A typical issue is a monitor being plugged into another circuit than the computer, it can cause currents to flow along what is normally considered a grounded shield, which isn't accounted for in most cases. A good PSU will help you deal with issues like this, a crummy one can make them worse. 

not what's happening here.

3 minutes ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

It ain't because they do it that it's a good idea or makes sense from a signal integrity point of view, audio products are pretty much a go to example for such things.

wether it works or not isnt my point, my point is they do it because the issue exists.

[papajo]

Just now, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

May I propose you go back to looking for LTT backpacks on aliexpress before you spout more nonsense?

Dude I do not know what your issue is but you obviously do not know what you are talking about and just post to "come back" at me for some reason...  I would suggest that you start some sort of activity that will make you feel happy instead of doing what you do right now because this is wrong. 

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

1 hour ago, papajo said:

Dude I do not know what your issue is but you obviously do not know what you are talking about and just post to "come back" at me for some reason...  I would suggest that you start some sort of activity that will make you feel happy instead of doing what you do right now because this is wrong. 

Go and gaslight someone else, you're just talking complete bullshit, and when someone calls you out on it you start bullshitting even more. So, where's that backpack?

 

1 hour ago, manikyath said:

my point is they do it because the issue exists.

No, pretty much all audio gear on the market demonstrates that an issue doesn't have to exist for folks to make design decisions based on it. And because it's advertised as such on the box, folks will actually believe it. They'll then notice the community does measurements of the problem in a specific way, and they'll modify the circuit to behave in the desired manner under those test conditions (e.g., just disable the amplifier driving the ADC if nothing is plugged in), and voila "low noise". Another good example of this sort of behaviour is audiophiles their vehement resistance against feedback-based amplifier topologies, while you can clearly prove that feedback improves amplifier performance by different measurable metrics, they will still claim their open loop system that drifts like crazy is better. And they'll also drag in measurements and examples, that pretty much all boil down to improper equipment usage, or they'll drag in a valve-based amplifier from sixty years ago that emits enough EMI to compete with the local radio station and say "look, if I hook it up to this thing it generates noise!"

 

Heck, my motherboard also has crap sound quality, when I plugin my Sennheiser headphones all it does is crack and distort, but I also know that's because the impedance range and drive power required are way out of spec for the output of said sound chip, that's why I went out and got a soundcard with a built-in headphone amplifier. I'm not going to be blaming the motherboard for that. Similar issues apply to microphones, but for some reason folks just assume that anything can sample from any microphone without issue.

[manikyath]

16 minutes ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

Go and gaslight someone else, you're just talking complete bullshit, and when someone calls you out on it you start bullshitting even more. So, where's that backpack?

i've butted heads with @papajobefore (if i'm not mistaken, *about* the backpack), but in this i'll take this side, because you're using what must be the high school example of a straw man argument.

 

i cant be arsed to read back on the details, at this point i cant even be arsed to read your reply's anymore... but if he's bullshitting, prove him wrong, dont start yammering about an unrelated thread.

i honestly am not even sure anymore you have read my replies, because you're still arguing WAY beside the point.

 

i dont care about the details, my point is that even *if* these cards did anything for sound quality, the fact of the matter is that there's bigger fish inside a computer, and the solution for the bigger fish is notably cheaper.

i'm trying to keep my goalposts where they are, dont move them.

[xnamkcor]

5 minutes ago, manikyath said:

i've butted heads with @papajobefore (if i'm not mistaken, *about* the backpack), but in this i'll take this side, because you're using what must be the high school example of a straw man argument.

 

i cant be arsed to read back on the details, at this point i cant even be arsed to read your reply's anymore... but if he's bullshitting, prove him wrong, dont start yammering about an unrelated thread.

i honestly am not even sure anymore you have read my replies, because you're still arguing WAY beside the point.

 

i dont care about the details, my point is that even *if* these cards did anything for sound quality, the fact of the matter is that there's bigger fish inside a computer, and the solution for the bigger fish is notably cheaper.

i'm trying to keep my goalposts where they are, dont move them.

In general, my solution is a reliable digital signal and a remote receiver that acts as a DAC.

[papajo]

3 hours ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

Go and gaslight someone else, you're just talking complete bullshit, and when someone calls you out on it you start bullshitting even more. So, where's that backpack?

 

Like do you live in some sort of inception like in a dream within a dream within a dream ?

In which universe you called me out? the only thing you did is display your negativity and ignorance. 

Lets forget that you are unable to understand the premise whatsoever and were stuck in a semantic which you did not even know about its existence, but only seconds after hastily googling DBI an acronym you saw on my graph and after hastily reading some few lines thought that you have something to "go against me" <--- because this is actually what you are after obviously since when one does hold bearings from other topics and insults people  in a totally different and irrelevant topic by using innuendos in an insulting manner related to the irrelevant older topic ( and in that topic I still cant see how one can disprove what I said lol but I see you used it as somehow it was established that I am wrong lol ) ?

Which is also against the rules btw (derailing) but I digress 

So even at that thing I proved (again without needing to do so because it is totally out of the point ) that you are wrong by simply posting this pdf and also showing a part of it as a screenshot which basically 100% confirms what I said about this out of the point semantic you tried to tackle in order to go agaist me... 

 

 

6 hours ago, papajo said:

EDIT 

Actually (although again as I said this is the "tree" and not the "forest" but just since you brought it up) looking further into it, it turns out that it is not just an observation/byproduct made by me but engineers also see DBI as a power filtering technique (https://www.xilinx.com/publications/events/designcon/2016/slides-optimalddr4systemwithdata-to.pdf)

Like it is obvious that you do not really know anything about this stuff but in what sense you dared even imagine you "called me out" I mean cant you read simple English like "Power noise Improvement with DBI enabled" ??