mahgister4,166 posts01-22-2021 12:40am
My actual NOS dac is minimalistic.... I chose it for this reason and the price...Correct me if i am wrong but the noise level of a minimalistic design may help or compensate in some measure for the lack of sophistication.... I am very satisfied by my actual dac anyway.... But the denafrips has glowing reviews indeed...
I am pretty sure that you know more than me about dac by the way..... š
~~~~~~
The array of resistors is not likely to fail. No thermal stressing. They are central to the design goals or reasons for the DAC being made. In some manner or another, they have to be there. I would do it slightly differently, but that is neither here nor there, regarding basic operational functionality.
Nothing wrong with the resistor array, per se. And weāve not heard much about failures, have we?
The capacitor arrays, though..could be better considered and better done. But opinions and thinking vary, and thatās a good thing, even if it may grind some.
Too much dogmatic thinking leads to what is eventually circular or curved motions and nothing gets done. Thereās no ability to correct the arrow of science when dogma projects control onto science. A place it should not be. Rigor and method? Sure, but dogmatic laws? No.
~~~~~~~~~~
To be clear (and ramble...), this point is about āscienceā. Not āengineeringā--which is a thing that operates under the umbrella of dogma in itās fundamentals. people get them confused with one another all the time.
Eg, even Elon Musk decided to address that point about two weeks back (via twitter). That is he not a rocket scientist, heās a rocket engineer. To clarify that there is no such thing as a rocket scientist. Like bridges, you donāt build rockets with ātheoriesā. You build rockets with facts, as they are tough enough already! Research: "The tyranny of the rocket equation." Space is hard because rockets are barely viable.
Scientists work with theories, which can change, they are mutable, correctable, changeable, amenable to new data, new hypothesis, new projections.... and then to proof them out. to make āfactsā. things that are ārelatively constantā, as... We donātā know. We never have known. We logically cannot know.. We can only theorize. Facts donāt exist, only theories exist. The quantum riddle of reality is writ large across science.
But.. to attempt scientific rigor...To make āfactsā (math, formulas, constants, etc), for the bulk of humanity which possesses dogmatic minds. For the engineers..as engineers work with facts. To make safe functional āthingsā. If engineers begin to experiment to gain new ground... then they are acting like scientists, in some regards.Ā
Note how ubiquitous that the term ārocket scientistā has become. Itās a total misnomer. Fundamentally incorrect. It illustrates how much people project and filter in permanence (some mindsets) or as 'dogma' in their fundamental thinking processes. A hugely damaging innate slowing/blocking filter in the progression of science.
Dogmatic thinking is innate to the concept of space-time and atomic aggregates, as we know it... or innate to how we filter ourselves into being... though the mechanism of mind... as tied to the atomic reality and relativity we live collectively in and though. (the animal basis and side of the fundamentals/projection of 'human consciousness' in the relative world and relative reality)Ā
Science says the same as the sex pistols regarding too much dogmatic mindset trying to control and corrupt science: 'No future, no future'....
Lots of failure points ..I think you are right even if i am interested by this product...
My actual NOS dac is minimalistic.... I chose it for this reason and the price...Correct me if i am wrong but the noise level of a minimalistic design may help or compensate in some measure for the lack of sophistication.... I am very satisfied by my actual dac anyway.... But the denafrips has glowing reviews indeed...
I am pretty sure that you know more than me about dac by the way..... š
~~~~~~
The array of resistors is not likely to fail. No thermal stressing. They are central to the design goals or reasons for the DAC being made. In some manner or another, they have to be there. I would do it slightly differently, but that is neither here nor there, regarding basic operational functionality.
Nothing wrong with the resistor array, per se. And weāve not heard much about failures, have we?
The capacitor arrays, though..could be better considered and better done. But opinions and thinking vary, and thatās a good thing, even if it may grind some.
Too much dogmatic thinking leads to what is eventually circular or curved motions and nothing gets done. Thereās no ability to correct the arrow of science when dogma projects control onto science. A place it should not be. Rigor and method? Sure, but dogmatic laws? No.
~~~~~~~~~~
To be clear (and ramble...), this point is about āscienceā. Not āengineeringā--which is a thing that operates under the umbrella of dogma in itās fundamentals. people get them confused with one another all the time.
Eg, even Elon Musk decided to address that point about two weeks back (via twitter). That is he not a rocket scientist, heās a rocket engineer. To clarify that there is no such thing as a rocket scientist. Like bridges, you donāt build rockets with ātheoriesā. You build rockets with facts, as they are tough enough already! Research: "The tyranny of the rocket equation." Space is hard because rockets are barely viable.
Scientists work with theories, which can change, they are mutable, correctable, changeable, amenable to new data, new hypothesis, new projections.... and then to proof them out. to make āfactsā. things that are ārelatively constantā, as... We donātā know. We never have known. We logically cannot know.. We can only theorize. Facts donāt exist, only theories exist. The quantum riddle of reality is writ large across science.
But.. to attempt scientific rigor...To make āfactsā (math, formulas, constants, etc), for the bulk of humanity which possesses dogmatic minds. For the engineers..as engineers work with facts. To make safe functional āthingsā. If engineers begin to experiment to gain new ground... then they are acting like scientists, in some regards.Ā
Note how ubiquitous that the term ārocket scientistā has become. Itās a total misnomer. Fundamentally incorrect. It illustrates how much people project and filter in permanence (some mindsets) or as 'dogma' in their fundamental thinking processes. A hugely damaging innate slowing/blocking filter in the progression of science.
Dogmatic thinking is innate to the concept of space-time and atomic aggregates, as we know it... or innate to how we filter ourselves into being... though the mechanism of mind... as tied to the atomic reality and relativity we live collectively in and though. (the animal basis and side of the fundamentals/projection of 'human consciousness' in the relative world and relative reality)Ā
Science says the same as the sex pistols regarding too much dogmatic mindset trying to control and corrupt science: 'No future, no future'....