Why is PCM1792A 2X more expensive tha PCM1795?

Isn't that usually the case?, posted on May 4, 2017 at 19:57:22
John Elison Audiophile Posts: 23900 Location: Central Kentucky Joined: December 20, 2000 Contributor Since: January 29, 2004	When it comes to digital, I thought price usually comes down for newer, improved components. What do you think?

RE: Why is PCM1792A 2X more expensive tha PCM1795?, posted on May 4, 2017 at 20:02:07
knewton Audiophile Posts: 563 Location: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Joined: May 18, 2010	The PCM1792A is the flagship device of this series of DAC chips (along with the PCM1794A), and features significantly superior performance over the PCM1795. Just compare their data sheets. That 24-bit versus 32-bit specification is strictly a marketing bullet point and does not reflect a performance advantage for the PCM1795, which actually is the inferior of the two. _ Ken Newton

RE: Isn't that usually the case?, posted on May 5, 2017 at 14:36:41

knewton
Audiophile

Posts: 563
Location: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Joined: May 18, 2010

Product pricing is determined by the following two major factors:
1. Market conditions (supply vs. demand)
2. Product cost

For the price of a product to fall, either it's supply increased, or it's demand decreased, or it's production cost has decreased, or some combination of those three. The inferior specifications for the PCM1795 would likely decrease market demand for it, as well as potentially lowering production cost, relative to the PCM1792A.

Advancements in fabrication technology does regularly drive down the fabrication cost of pure digital chips, but that does not ncessarily follow for analog chips, nor for mixed-signal chips, such as audio DACs. Even when there is a reduction in fabrication costs vendors would prefer not to pass the reduction on to customers via lower pricing. They would rather pocket any cost reduction as increased profit. Competitive (market) pressures are what drive vendors to keep lowering prices as cost falls.

_
Ken Newton

RE: Isn't that usually the case?, posted on May 5, 2017 at 19:20:53

John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23900
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
Since: January 29, 2004

I don't know the specifications for either of those two DAC chips, but my TASCAM DA-3000 contains the PCM1795 and it sounds great to me. Furthermore, it plays DSD 2.8-MHz and DSD 5.6-MHz. I have fallen in love with the sound of DSD and I'm making all my vinyl recordings in DSD 5.6-MHz from now on.

Are there any DSD DACs that use the PCM1792A? I really like the texture of high frequencies from DSD recordings. They seem to sound more analog than any PCM recordings I've heard.

Thanks,
John Elison

RE: Isn't that usually the case?, posted on May 5, 2017 at 20:41:34
knewton Audiophile Posts: 563 Location: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Joined: May 18, 2010	I don't know off hand which commercial DAC boxes utilize the PCM1792A. _ Ken Newton

RE: Isn't that usually the case?, posted on May 5, 2017 at 21:02:54

John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23900
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
Since: January 29, 2004

Okay!

Well, I'm perfectly happy with the PCM1795 DAC chips in my TASCAM DA-3000. It actually sounds as good as any DAC I've heard and you can't beat the price.

Thanks,
John Elison

TASCAM DA-3000 at Sweetwater

There are a number of them, posted on May 6, 2017 at 10:03:08
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37604 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	Found here. My ARC DAC8 uses a pair of PCM1792s. While each has two channels, the DAC maintains separate master oscillators for 44.1/88.2/176.4 and 48/96/192 operation.

Because the die is twice as large in the PCM1792A, posted on May 6, 2017 at 22:45:51

Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 6984
Joined: August 1, 2001

As one poster pointed out, the PCM1795 chip is "32-bit" only in the sense that the input buffer will accept 32-bit data. That theoretically correlates to a 192 dB S/N ratio, which is obviously just a marketing gimmick and not even close to possible in the real world.

Of greater importance is that the '1792A outputs twice as much current as the '1795. This is because there are twice as many current sources in the output stage (or the same number but that are twice the size). The result is ~6 dB better S/N ratio (all else being equal), or the equivalent of one more bit of true resolution (not marketing resolution). Twice the number (or size) of current sources requires twice the space on the silicon wafer for each die. That means each wafer yields roughly 2x as many '1795 dice as '1792A dice, so TI needs to charge twice as much for the '1792A.

Hope this helps.

Simple Supply and Demand, posted on May 7, 2017 at 12:55:24
Dynobot	Nothing more or less.

RE: There are a number of them, posted on May 12, 2017 at 17:08:37
bjh Audiophile Posts: 18614 Location: Ontario Joined: November 22, 2003	Yeah but how many have the PCM1792A The PCM1792 is obsolete.

RE: There are a number of them, posted on May 12, 2017 at 19:46:57
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37604 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	Yeah but how many have the PCM1792A Click my link and count for yourself. The PCM1792 is obsolete. In that context, every chip or component that has been updated is such. The twenty year old PCM1704 remains quite popular as used in new designs by Audiogd, etc. I'd much rather have an older high performance component than a brand-spanking-new one that is less so. :)

RE: There are a number of them, posted on May 13, 2017 at 08:12:34
bjh Audiophile Posts: 18614 Location: Ontario Joined: November 22, 2003	"The PCM1792 is obsolete. In that context, every chip or component that has been updated is such." That's right, you got it.

Digital Drive

Why is PCM1792A 2X more expensive tha PCM1795?

98.10.54.107