Regarding hte first point, that 120dB broadband noise figure is giving you at least 140dB of SFDR, probably much better, and the depth of any critical band is going to be even better yet. Even 16 bit data with a decent noise shaper is going to be 120dB deep in the 2-4kHz critical bands. (all of which doesn't disagree with anything you said of course)

Oh! I remember this one :-) I'll be honest here-- this particular debate is outside my core expertise. I have enough background to say "this is all plausible" (I'm an electrical engineer after all), and I've discussed it in person with an author of a few papers on the same subject, but I'm only a dilletante when it comes to building amps.

>I guess my point is that it's too easy to make an error when seeing an "interesting idea and no data" and dismissing it.

I agree with you completely. Interesting ideas should be published; no paper is born in the state of being independently verified. I object to those who take these papers as evidence to support a position when no such validation has taken place. Thinking aloud is useful, but thinking aloud != hard data.

I'm actually giggling that 20 bits of real dept is 'disappointing' in any sense of the word. It's bloody fantastic! :-)
(I hadn't meant to trash the ESS chip in any sense. I've not used it, but it looks impressive)

Well, for the record, I've not been rejected, but I've only published within AES once.

It's not an attack, it's more a statement of truth. The AES publishes all sorts of things. Papers with interesting ideas and no data (eg, the J. Dunn 'equiripple filters cause preecho' paper, which presents a fascinating insight, even if it doesn't work out in practice), papers with data that are effectively WTFLOL (the famous Oohashi MRI paper) and papers that are more careful controlled studies. It runs the whole gamut on both sides, just as I said.

Do you deny that a substantial portion of the membership, including many elders of the group, are not 'bigger numbers are always audibly better' audiophiles? It was Andy Moorer himself who, with no hard data, kicked off the insane sampling rate race that now has some hardcore audiophiles wondering if 192kHz is enough.. they're holding out for 384kHz!

Is the AES a worthless cesspool? Oh heck no. Never said that. But treating its publications as more than a good industry rag (where it's sometimes hard to tell the research from the advertisements).. or perhaps an advanced debating club... is probably not a very good idea. Treating any one AES paper as gospel is just insane.

Oh, what do you know. In that case, go forth and unsubscribe :-)

As for me, it was 'membership'. Peer review means little when a substantial portion of the peers don't believe in the scientific method.

Dynamic range (not SNR) is 22.5 bits ("How quiet the chip can get when it's doing nothing/off"). SNR is 20 bits at best given the 120dB THD+N spec.

Surely you mean membership...?

ESS's own specs list it at THD+N of 20 bits, and SNR can't be higher than that.

This is also an 'ultimate' DAC, supposedly the Terminator of the current generation (in ESS's own marketing anyway)

Parent post is talking about broadband SNR, not narrowband depth or SFDR. Very few ADCs/DACs reach 20 bits SNR. Almost all exceed 20 bits SFDR. Noise shaping has nothing to do with it; it actually penalizes SNR even though it is generally a [great] benefit to perceived fidelity.

Assuming from the press release that this is an apodizing filter that 'removes' Gibbs effect preringning... how many peer reviewed studies can we compile here below my post that indicate anyone can hear these 'artifacts'?

Ready, on your marks, go!

Be careful of publications from the businesses that are pushing these filters (eg, Meridian audio / J. Robert Stuart). AES papers count only if the results have been independently reproduced (the AES is in the business of publishing 'interesting ideas', and the papers run the gamut of careful science to raving lunacy).

"I listened and _totally_ heard a rounder, fuller sound with better staging" is not data. It's what audiophiles have said of every nonsense breakthrough of the past 40 years. The one true breakthrough, digital audio, they generally still roundly pan and feel the need to 'fix' by sprinkling fertilizer all over it. It's like holy penguin pee, only it smells bad.

'Proofs' and explanations are nice, I indulge in them myself, but the blind listening data is the final authority.