Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: Are`DACs with the ESS Sabre the best DACs? posted by jseverino50 on March 17, 2012 at 08:49:25
OK, these are pretty old chips unable to decode 24/192 audio, and are very
Ikely inferior to even newer BB products (like the 1798). So what is your point?
As far as the PCM1704 is concerned, it handles 24/192. When using the DF1704, it's limted to 24/96 because that digital filter is limited to 24/96. When using the DF1706, a digital filter which handles 24/192, you get 24/192 into the PCM1704.
As a matter of fact, the PCM1704 will handle 24/768 because that's what it gets fed inside Peter St's (XXHighEnd) Phasure NOS1 24/768 async USB DAC.
Check out the info on the Burr-Brown chips about 1/3 of the way down the page
I'm a bit confused as to why the ability to decode 24/192 would automatically make a chip superior to the one that cannot??
Here's what I do know...my ears hear a difference. I also know that many folks are buying up these older cd players and DACs and having upgrades performed - and are very happy with the results relative to what they would receive if purchasing a new player or DAC.
My discipline is Mechanical, so I'm not going to claim to be an expert, but I do listen to alot of music, and I've been in this hobby since 1974. I've also been fortunate enough to have the financial resources to purchase a silly amount of gear - so that's my perspective.
And if I'm not mistaken, the manufacture of these multi-bit DACs is very expensive vs the delta sigma - no?
Your suspicions are correct, the ability of a DAC chip to decode 24/192 has nothing to do with its performance or sound quality at 16/44.
You are also correct that the primary reason why sigma-delta DAC chips have almost completely replaced multibit R-2R chips in audio applications is SD's lower chip manufacturing cost.
"You are also correct that the primary reason why sigma-delta DAC chips have almost completely replaced multibit R-2R chips in audio applications is SD's lower chip manufacturing cost."
The reason why the R-2R approach is expensive is the critical difficulty of matching the components, without which the approach yields non-linearity and distortion. The delta-sigma approach sidesteps this problem by clever design techniques, which if done correctly yields higher performance than is possible with R-2R regardless of cost.
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
But it's how you define "higher performance" that matters here.
In this thread I have suggested that another poster find a Denon DCD-S10 II and have a listen. This suggestion is based upon many hours of happy listening to an audio friends system
This same person recently had a new "super" clock installed in the DCD-S10 II, and also had someone go through and upgrade all caps etc. I've heard this player twice since he got it home...the only way I can describe it is amazing!!
The same guy also owns an EMM Labs SACD/CD player that set him back quite a few bucks - it's getting no air time.
The Denon uses the PCM1702J...a lowly 20 bit DAC, but as musical as you'll find.
Is that "higher performance"?
For $1500 he could have chosen the Denon A100, which has SOTA components already plus ALS 32 processing....beats anything I've heard, like my XA5400Modrwighted player and my Levinson 360s/37 combo. It will go down as the "One" that you should have purchased, but didn't. Why? Because it didn't get reviewed and your audio snob friends said it couldn't be that good:O) Psst..it's better than good, it's phenomenal!
"The Denon uses the PCM1702J...a lowly 20 bit DAC, but as musical as you'll find."
Possibly "as musical as you'll find" - - for people who are satisfied with redbook CD quality. Many folks here (well maybe not here here in "Digital" but over in the PC-Audio forum) have moved way beyond CD quality with very high resolution music files that would never come to life through a dated 20-bit DAC.
But if you're talking strictly CD's I suppose your comment makes some sense.
I'm referring the CD...I've given up on SACD, and at this time have no interest in using my computer for more then email.
Regarding the high res solution though, I visited a gent late last year in North Toronto to have a peek at a pair of Sonus Fabers he had for sale. He had what he described as "about as good as you can get" setup utilizing a Mac and who knows what else. I'll agree that it is different, but I'm not sure it was better.
Let's face it, after listening to both live and recorded music for well over 30 years now, and most of it Rock or Metal...well, my ears are likely not what they used to be. But I do know what hits me the right way, and I'm not convinced that digital audio is going in the right direction.
So in your opinion the PS Audio Digital Link III is a Superior Dac to the LessLoss Dac because it can decode 24/192..?
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
I thought we were just talking about the chips here, not the full DAC. I do think that the ability to play 24/192 and 24/176.4 well is essential for a current DAC, though, and I suspect n the near future DSD capability will be essential as well. It is true that some of the world's best sounding DAC's at 16/44.1 won't play anything else, but I don't think that has anything to do with the specific op-amp DAC chip they use.
The best Dacs actually don't have opamps.
But then if it had nothing to do with the type of Dac chip, I guess its just a coincidence that "historically' the best Dacs used BB chips and the best of the best used 1704 chips.
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
It's nice, especially with an opamp upgrade, but doesn't have the resolution or transparency of my newest DAC with an Analog Devices AD1955.
Or maybe the difference because of he Assemblage's CS8412 S/PDIF receiver and the new DAC's DIR9001.
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: