Hi,
No, they claim 175dB DNR for their ASRC, but the best looking of the public domain measurements show a -160dB FFT Noisefloor.
Without knowing the exact FFT parameters it is hard to convert that to DNR, but we are quite safe in stating that it is substantially less than 175dB. At an educated guess true SNR/DNR for these plots is around -125dB...
Any you like. The catalogs of the usual suspects (from Analog Devices to Texas Instruments) are overflowing with choices.
I might be tempted to parallel 8pcs PCM1704 per channel and use something smarter than a DF1704 to feed them (also to make use of having 8pcs), but that really breaks the budget.
I do not much care for DS chip's, even the latest generation.
For CD I am sticking with TDA1541 and as it can also accept 192KHz non-os data I am also sticking with it for HD content for now, even though it truncates at 16 Bit.
Yes it is.
Yes it can, clearly this must be designed in. But low jitter multi gate circuitry exists and thus doing a 1:6 low jitter clock fanout is not difficult. If using dedicated IC's it can be even better.
Ciao T
No, they claim 175dB DNR for their ASRC, but the best looking of the public domain measurements show a -160dB FFT Noisefloor.
Without knowing the exact FFT parameters it is hard to convert that to DNR, but we are quite safe in stating that it is substantially less than 175dB. At an educated guess true SNR/DNR for these plots is around -125dB...
Any you like. The catalogs of the usual suspects (from Analog Devices to Texas Instruments) are overflowing with choices.
I might be tempted to parallel 8pcs PCM1704 per channel and use something smarter than a DF1704 to feed them (also to make use of having 8pcs), but that really breaks the budget.
I do not much care for DS chip's, even the latest generation.
For CD I am sticking with TDA1541 and as it can also accept 192KHz non-os data I am also sticking with it for HD content for now, even though it truncates at 16 Bit.
Yes it is.
Yes it can, clearly this must be designed in. But low jitter multi gate circuitry exists and thus doing a 1:6 low jitter clock fanout is not difficult. If using dedicated IC's it can be even better.
Ciao T
jkeny,
Maybe what you're hearing has more to do with less DSP rather than less jitter? Don't know really, but ESS' jitter reduction process itself may account for the difference in sound between their regular implementation and using a syncronous MCLK. Less mucking with the signal and all that. Seems possible anyway...
Maybe what you're hearing has more to do with less DSP rather than less jitter? Don't know really, but ESS' jitter reduction process itself may account for the difference in sound between their regular implementation and using a syncronous MCLK. Less mucking with the signal and all that. Seems possible anyway...
Hi,
Does it matter?
It's a 32 Bit DAC. A good one.
Realistically all these "32-Bit" DAC's are at best 21-22Bit ENOB.
Ciao T
Does it matter?
It's a 32 Bit DAC. A good one.
Realistically all these "32-Bit" DAC's are at best 21-22Bit ENOB.
Ciao T
Hi,
Maybe I am off base here, but for the things that matter to me I find that power supply design / decoupling, reference voltages, clock jitter (or preferably the absence thereof) as well as analogue stage design make a by far greater contribution than the actual DAC Chip's. Most modern DAC chips sound so similar (even if the measured performance differs a lot) when applied with equal care, it matters little who'se you take.
There are some manufacturers (like CS of course) who substitute silicone area and real resolution for aggressive noise shaping whose products leave a lot to be desired. Most others charge a few cent more and have comparable levels of resolution.
Ciao T
Maybe I am off base here, but for the things that matter to me I find that power supply design / decoupling, reference voltages, clock jitter (or preferably the absence thereof) as well as analogue stage design make a by far greater contribution than the actual DAC Chip's. Most modern DAC chips sound so similar (even if the measured performance differs a lot) when applied with equal care, it matters little who'se you take.
There are some manufacturers (like CS of course) who substitute silicone area and real resolution for aggressive noise shaping whose products leave a lot to be desired. Most others charge a few cent more and have comparable levels of resolution.
Ciao T
T,
Fair enough if you don't want to say whose chip it is. Don't see what harm could come from letting the cat out of the bag since implementation is critical, but it's your cat to set free or not
Just a 24 bit side note, I forgot to put AD on the list... The AD1852 is one chip I can always pick out with a short listen. Don't like it at all, it sounds digital, and yes I have heard it in quite a few different implementations. So I tend to disagree that they all sound similar. CS and AD don't do it for me at all. AKM seems to have potential as do BB and ESS. Haven't heard the WM chips yet.
Anyway, my apologies for jittering off track in the most interesting thread I've read in a long while.
Fair enough if you don't want to say whose chip it is. Don't see what harm could come from letting the cat out of the bag since implementation is critical, but it's your cat to set free or not
Just a 24 bit side note, I forgot to put AD on the list... The AD1852 is one chip I can always pick out with a short listen. Don't like it at all, it sounds digital, and yes I have heard it in quite a few different implementations. So I tend to disagree that they all sound similar. CS and AD don't do it for me at all. AKM seems to have potential as do BB and ESS. Haven't heard the WM chips yet.
Anyway, my apologies for jittering off track in the most interesting thread I've read in a long while.
Hi,
This is hilarious.
A while back I designed a little OEM PCB for a DAC. The customer insisted on using the AD1852. So we applied a little (well, a lot) of effort on both circuit design and component selection.
Now it does not sound as "analogue" as (say) the TDA1541A, but it certainly does not sound "digital". To add insult to the injury, this DAC uses a fairly bog standard Op-Amp circuit (not my design) as analogue stage. In reviews this DAC has been called "very musical" several times...
So again, it actually underscores my point of "implementation WAY, WAY, WAY before actual chip". Though the AD1852 would have probably been one of my last choices (as would have been the analogue stages as implemented), truth be told.
Ciao T
This is hilarious.
A while back I designed a little OEM PCB for a DAC. The customer insisted on using the AD1852. So we applied a little (well, a lot) of effort on both circuit design and component selection.
Now it does not sound as "analogue" as (say) the TDA1541A, but it certainly does not sound "digital". To add insult to the injury, this DAC uses a fairly bog standard Op-Amp circuit (not my design) as analogue stage. In reviews this DAC has been called "very musical" several times...
So again, it actually underscores my point of "implementation WAY, WAY, WAY before actual chip". Though the AD1852 would have probably been one of my last choices (as would have been the analogue stages as implemented), truth be told.
Ciao T
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.