Best digital receivers database

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I'm always tinkering about DACs.
Reading threads here and there an idea formed into my mind. Which are the best digital audio receivers?

I'm posting some specs below:
[model, brand, sampling rate, jitter RMS, year of introduction, avail]

DIR9001 (TI, 24/96, 50 ps, 2006, in production)
CS8414 (cirrus logic, 24/96, 200, 1998, discontinued)
CS8416 (cirrus logic, 24/192, 200, 2002 (upd 2007), in production)
...

Anybody that made comparisons could contribute to this thread. It is not intended to be a definitive guide, but just informative.
 
Thanks, updating.

[model, brand, sampling rate, jitter RMS, year of introduction, avail]

DIR9001 (TI, 24/96, 50 ps, 2006, in production)
CS8414 (cirrus logic, 24/96, 200 ps, 1998, discontinued)
CS8416 (cirrus logic, 24/192, 200 ps, 2002 (upd 2007), in production)
WM8804 (wolfson, 24/192, 50 ps, 2007, in production)

Later I will add links to overview and datasheets.
 
kevinkr said:
I'd add the Wolfson WM8804/8805 spdif receivers to the list, both are in production. WM8804 is what I currently use.

Full specification sheet here: www.wolfsonmicro.com/uploads/documents/en/WM8804_Rev4.0.pdf

Thank you very much.
The 8804 has the best specs so far. Does it also sound great? Did u compare it to any other receiver?

8805 is just the 8-channel version.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Telstar said:


Thank you very much.
The 8804 has the best specs so far. Does it also sound great? Did u compare it to any other receiver?

8805 is just the 8-channel version.

Unfortunately I have not done a direct comparison to the CS8416, and have not worked with any of the older chips recently enough to have a valid opinion, but I am very pleased with the overall performance of the dac I built using the WM8804 and a pair of PCM1798 in mono mode. (1794 are just too expensive..)

I did want to go with the WM8804 based on the excellent specs and it just happened that Twisted Pear Audio makes a receiver module using just this chip so I bought one assembled and built the rest of the dac.

I am using variants of the TPA boards which I built from bare pcb with some modifications and a fairly exotic analog supply. The dac is the best I have owned so far, better that I built it myself. (It replaced a heavily modified Zhaolu 2.5A using the AD1852 dac and a CS8416 receiver. The Zhaolu's performance was not at all in the same league as the new dac so I sold it.)
 
Re: Re: Best digital receivers database

[model, brand, sampling rate, jitter RMS, year of introduction, avail]

DIR9001 (TI, 24/96, 50 ps, 2006, in production)

CS8414 (cirrus logic, 24/96, 200 ps, 1998, discontinued)
CS8416 (cirrus logic, 24/192, 200 ps, 2002 (upd 2007), in production)

WM8804 (wolfson, 24/192, 50 ps, 2007, in production,
datasheet)

AK4114 (AKM, 24/192, ?, in productiondatasheet)
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
quote:
Originally posted by theAnonymous1
Kevin,

Would you like to upgrade to PCM1794A? I have some I can share.


gaetan8888 said:



Hello

I would be interested.

Are they same or better than PCM1792A ?

Bye

Gaetan

They aren't directly interchangeable - the 92 is a voltage output type and the 94 is a current output type. The 94 requires I/V conversion and balanced to unbalanced output conversion, the 92 buffering and balanced to unbalanced output conversion.

I haven't checked the '92 specs lately, but the '94 is one of TI/BB premium offerings.

I haven't yet changed over from the '98 to the '94 in my diy dac due to lack of time to do so.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
theAnonymous1 said:
Kevin,

Would you like to upgrade to PCM1794A? I have some I can share.

Just wanted to let you know I finally installed those PCM1794A last night and they are definitely very noticeably better than the PCM1798As they replaced. Haven't had much time to listen yet, but definitely much appreciated. The biggest difference so far seems to be in imaging, soundstage depth and width, and micro-detail recovery - all subtly, but audibly improved. Actually the improvements to the soundstage are not so subtle, I am much more able to localize where instruments are in the mix with these converters than I was with the '98 which seemed much more diffuse. (Obviously no direct comparison possible.)
 
kevinkr said:


Just wanted to let you know I finally installed those PCM1794A last night and they are definitely very noticeably better than the PCM1798As they replaced. Haven't had much time to listen yet, but definitely much appreciated. The biggest difference so far seems to be in imaging, soundstage depth and width, and micro-detail recovery - all subtly, but audibly improved. Actually the improvements to the soundstage are not so subtle, I am much more able to localize where instruments are in the mix with these converters than I was with the '98 which seemed much more diffuse. (Obviously no direct comparison possible.)

Hello Kevin

I just buy the PCM1794A chip, do you have a schematic of your PCM1794A dac ?

Thank

Bye

Gaetan
 
kevinkr said:
The boards I am using are modified ones I bought and assembled a year or so ago. They're the COD boards from twisted pear audio. There is no significant difference to what I was designing at the time and this board so I elected to save some money and use their's.


Hello Kevin

With a WM8804 receiver.

Do you use a src4192 on this board ?

Thank

Bye

Gaetan
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
gaetan8888 said:



Hello Kevin

With a WM8804 receiver.

Do you use a src4192 on this board ?

Thank

Bye

Gaetan

I use the WM8804 receiver which is the only module I did not build from scratch. (The others are fairly heavily modified.) Despite the obvious imperfections of 16/44 pcm I find I prefer it unresampled whether by software or by ASRC implemented in hardware. (Resampling seemed to make things sound smoother and more analog like in some ways, but also seemed to loose some dynamics and imaging precision - this is my impression of both ASRC and real time software resampling.) I also have some higher rez material at 24 bits and 48K, 88.2K, and 96K which I would not want to resample under any circumstances.

I am using power supplies that I designed and built for the purpose, they are something like the old Sulzer/Jung super regulators, and are extremely quiet, have low output Z and rather more current capability than is required to power these boards.

The I/V is handled by a modified IVY driving line matching transformers in balanced mode to provide unbalanced outputs - works quite well and sounds more transparent to my ears than the differential op-amp stage usually employed.

When I built these boards (cods and IVY) I did not have full bills of materials from TPA, so I ended up building them a bit differently than they do. Primarily I used a lot of Black Gates instead of the low ESR smd electrolytics that normally come on the board. I used Holco resistors on the audio pcb.

Were I to do this again I would probably omit the terminal blocks used for the audio data and clocks and use mating headers and connectors in the boards. I think the current scheme probably generates some significant reflections due to the non-impedance controlled nature of these connectors and the wires between them. I may still end up doing this at some point. (The waveforms look ok on the scope, but I can't tell much - improving this path can hardly hurt.)
 
kevinkr said:


I use the WM8804 receiver which is the only module I did not build from scratch. (The others are fairly heavily modified.) Despite the obvious imperfections of 16/44 pcm I find I prefer it unresampled whether by software or by ASRC implemented in hardware. (Resampling seemed to make things sound smoother and more analog like in some ways, but also seemed to loose some dynamics and imaging precision - this is my impression of both ASRC and real time software resampling.) I also have some higher rez material at 24 bits and 48K, 88.2K, and 96K which I would not want to resample under any circumstances.

I am using power supplies that I designed and built for the purpose, they are something like the old Sulzer/Jung super regulators, and are extremely quiet, have low output Z and rather more current capability than is required to power these boards.

The I/V is handled by a modified IVY driving line matching transformers in balanced mode to provide unbalanced outputs - works quite well and sounds more transparent to my ears than the differential op-amp stage usually employed.

When I built these boards (cods and IVY) I did not have full bills of materials from TPA, so I ended up building them a bit differently than they do. Primarily I used a lot of Black Gates instead of the low ESR smd electrolytics that normally come on the board. I used Holco resistors on the audio pcb.

Were I to do this again I would probably omit the terminal blocks used for the audio data and clocks and use mating headers and connectors in the boards. I think the current scheme probably generates some significant reflections due to the non-impedance controlled nature of these connectors and the wires between them. I may still end up doing this at some point. (The waveforms look ok on the scope, but I can't tell much - improving this path can hardly hurt.)


Hello Kevin

Have you try tube I/V output like using 12AX7 ?

Bye

Gaetan
 
kevinkr said:


I use the WM8804 receiver which is the only module I did not build from scratch. (The others are fairly heavily modified.) Despite the obvious imperfections of 16/44 pcm I find I prefer it unresampled whether by software or by ASRC implemented in hardware. (Resampling seemed to make things sound smoother and more analog like in some ways, but also seemed to loose some dynamics and imaging precision - this is my impression of both ASRC and real time software resampling.) I also have some higher rez material at 24 bits and 48K, 88.2K, and 96K which I would not want to resample under any circumstances.

I chime in my own thread just to day to say that I agree with your opinion about upsampling.

Also, to ask if you compared the pcm1794 to the pcm1704.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.