How The IC Industry Tests Audio Chips

[_Scotty_]

A link to this article detailing how the IC industry evaluates the sonic quality of new chip designs was recently posted on AudioCircle. It makes for facinating reading. It appears that in order to remain competitve a chip manufacturer has to be very concerned with how a chip sounds as well as how it measures. http://www.edn.com/article/CA6418209.html?nid=2431&rid=243880419#Can you even measure that?
As the link to this article will break eventually: http://www.edn.com/contents/images/6418209.pdf
I hope this information is useful to the community here.
Scotty

 

[mtrycrafts]

A link to this article detailing how the IC industry evaluates the sonic quality of new chip designs was recently posted on AudioCircle. It makes for facinating reading. It appears that in order to remain competitve a chip manufacturer has to be very concerned with how a chip sounds as well as how it measures. http://www.edn.com/article/CA6418209.html?nid=2431&rid=243880419#Can you even measure that?
As the link to this article will break eventually: http://www.edn.com/contents/images/6418209.pdf
I hope this information is useful to the community here.
Scotty

Interesting reading, yes
Thanks.

 

[dave1490]

A link to this article detailing how the IC industry evaluates the sonic quality of new chip designs was recently posted on AudioCircle. It makes for facinating reading. It appears that in order to remain competitve a chip manufacturer has to be very concerned with how a chip sounds as well as how it measures. http://www.edn.com/article/CA6418209.html?nid=2431&rid=243880419#Can you even measure that?
As the link to this article will break eventually: http://www.edn.com/contents/images/6418209.pdf
I hope this information is useful to the community here.
Scotty

good read

 

[highfihoney]

To me the article read like pie in the face to the whole theory of"all properly designed gear sounds the same" in fact my take on the article reads the exact oposite.


I agree with the others,it was a good read.

 

[_Scotty_]

highfihoney, I like the pie in the face analogy. It is reassuring to know that the companies that build the products that I will be using for the foreseeable future are trying to advance the state of the art in audio reproduction. It is a good thing that the Flatearth mentality
does not apply to the IC industry where it could easily doom us all to a future
filled with mediocre sounding equipment.
Scotty

 

[Ampdog]

To me the article read like pie in the face to the whole theory of"all properly designed gear sounds the same" in fact my take on the article reads the exact oposite.

Mmmmmm.

It would appear that the quote of "properly designed gear" is still true! One does learn from the further investigations after listeners reported dissatisfaction, that that was in fact not so. And all is connected to some form of digital aberation - at least in this article.

I am fond of using the quoted phrase, but am also careful to put the "properly" in. I was wondering what this article would bring out, and it mainly seems that digital design still lacks a complete list of "must" tests. I would carefully dare say that that is no longer the case with amplifiers, especially analogue, in as much as the input is analogue. My experience of commercial amplifiers is limited, but I cannot recall one instance of reported dissatisfaction that could not be traced to a measured result in an amplifier. But very often all the tests are not performed.

Not to belabour; it is indeed so that "5,5 S" tests are rather lacking. But in the end, very enlightening to me also, and thanks for bringing that article out, Scotty!

Regards