On 2017-06-26, David Pickett wrote:

This whole business of low noise microphones and preamps is in my experience a non-issue in the vast majority of cases.

That said, I was upset to discover that MOTU publish no details on their website of the 4Pre that can be construed as truly technical. [...]

Obviously they should publish their figures. In fact I don't think we should really implicitly trust any figure given out by any equipment purveyor. Instead we should, how was it now, "trust, but verify".

My personal waking up experience there was when I as a teenager upgraded from a Gravis Ultrasound soundcard to a Gravis Ultrasound MAX. At the time those were the most cost efficient means of producing sampled sound from a PC expansion card, and I believe it's settled the original Gravis card, at least in its later iterations, can still be called a small marvel of sound, low-cost engineering.

The MAX on the other hand immediately sounded noisy and irritating to me. Of course I still just had to have it, because it was the first credible consumer range card on the market to not only support 44/16 playback, but to have it done at low central processor load. Gravis achieved that by tacking on a separate Crystal Logic two channel converter chip (CS4231), while leaving their existing custom GF1 ASIC chip to do offloaded sample playback synthesis (32 voices!!!). The efficiency gain in direct playback was because you could do DMA over the ISA bus, without the tortuous peeking and poking and unreliable DMA-to-device-memory, and chunking to fit register constraints, and without any hardware synchronization on board the GF1, and whatnot. Programming that chip was sheer hell, which showed in any application not doing precisely what it was meant to do, and everybody liked the stupider, more direct access of the MAX's new chip.

Except that the card sounded like shit. No user accessible feature of it made it silent. It not only hissed, it let through power supply fluctuations. Those emanating from hard drive seek servoes, in particular.

I eventually got incensed enough to actually contact Crystal Logic, and procure the new chip's databook. (Then they still used to send them for free, over mail.) My first analysis of the problem was that they had this new, unknown to me thingy called "dither" in there, and after duly disassembling half of Gravis's driver code, I determined it was turned on. So I dialed, a number of times over successive days or perhaps even weeks, Gravis's Finnish helpline. (They had to have that, because the Finnish Demo Scene was a considerable driver of Gravis sales then. Demos can't waste any cycle, now..? ;) ) I pestered the hell out of a couple of service reps and even a couple of engineers, to no eventual avail. I resigned to the reality of a now-shitty soundcard, and eventually just switched it out as part of technological development.

A few years later, after I'd finally taken a slightly more involved look into mixed analogue-digital engineering as well -- and still nothing spectacular, just the barest of basics -- I suddenly thought to look back at my noise problem with the MAX. As it happened, I still had the databook of the new converter chip with me, with its reference PCB design, not to mention both the physical card *and* a '486 carrying motherboard in which to plug it.

If I remember correctly, I ended up cutting a couple of line level connects on the board and rerouting them through a haphazard out of board capacitive traps. Did something similar to separate a couple of digital signals, including the the clock signal to the new converter chip, from the analogue earth. Put a bit of actual tin foil encased in saran wrap over the digital section, strategically grounded.

...and then most crucially completely reworked how the analogue reference of the new converter chip was fed. Because that was the true root cause of the problem: for some reason unfathomable to me, Gravis's engineers had decided to mostly adapt Cirrus's reference layout for the new section, *except* for the *explicit* warnings against in *any* way directly coupling the pin to the workings of the digital section. Even touching its (in itself well designed, wide) ground willy-nilly, because of what ground resistance and reactance do to all of them funny-funny digital switching transients (remember, at that time the voltages and currents we worked with on the digital side were at least a decade and sometimes more beyond today's figures). The circuit board also relied on external regulation alone, with typically *very* substandard performance as far as audiophiles would have it; while the first iteration with only the GF1 ASIC and its analogue output circuitry had been well designed to withstand that, the added-on Cirrus chip couldn't cope with that at all.

The final version of my modifications brought down the total noise somewhere in excess of 30dB. The end result just fell silent, as it should have been from the start. I'm also rather certain the same result could have been achieved at negligible cost had the PCB been designed right from the start; even going with Cirrus's reference design and the ample commentary which came with it, the board could have been as first rate as the first iteration was. Combining those two separate teams' efforts fully, I'm pretty sure they could have exceeded my eventual achieved performance by at least a couple of decibels in inherent noise and power supply rejection -- my modifications having costed something in the vicinity of 15€ in current money, while being total overkill, and achievable by sane, careful circuit design at a tenth or even a hundreth of the total cost.

Long story short, openness and the sane engineering discipline which goes along with it can achieve a lot. Even in the lowest realms of engineering. In this case, with one half-clueless teenager rectifying an ex post *obvious* engineering fault of a well-performing, already mostly well-engineered mass-market product.
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Reply via email to