diyAudio

diyAudio (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/)
-   Digital Line Level (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/)
-   -   Have you seen anything like this? (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/204065-have-you-seen-anything-like.html)

mr_push_pull 8th January 2012 10:51 PM

Have you seen anything like this?
 
Weiss DAC202 FireWire D/A converter Measurements | Stereophile.com
WOW!

SoNic_real_one 8th January 2012 11:53 PM

Nice indeed. But... nice enough to shell 6000$?
I can bet that is based on the flagship ESS DAC (ES9018 in mono or stereo mode).

Pano 9th January 2012 12:15 AM

Very impressive results. I do like the ESS chips, if that's what's in here. Amazing work on the analog section, for sure.

SoNic_real_one 9th January 2012 02:46 AM

That is just my (educated) guess. Anyway, ESS did their homework for analog section with OpAmps:
http://www.esstech.com/PDF/Applicati...PCB_Layout.pdf

planet10 9th January 2012 03:07 AM

Since i prefer a Firewire DAC i've been following these guys for a while... either theirs or DAD would be on the short list if i won the lottery.

dave

abraxalito 9th January 2012 03:42 AM

What's up with the 15bit noise floor in figure 11 (slow filter mode)? Looks to me like a blooper... :p

<edit> Here's what the reviewer says about the filter giving the fig 11 performance:

Filter B offered a more three-dimensional quality, greater liquidity, and a smoother top end. I felt that Filter B played more to the DAC202's strengths, offering sound that even the most digiphobic audiophile could appreciate

kevinkr 9th January 2012 04:52 AM

I must be missing or misinterpreting something in figure 11 as I think I see a noise floor much lower than 15bits... Or another figure is being referenced? I do see an IM tone at 1kHz that is about -62dBfs..

abraxalito 9th January 2012 04:54 AM

You're missing that the FFT plot gives a noise benefit - you can't get the audio band noise level off the plot directly without knowing the bin bandwidth.

georgehifi 9th January 2012 04:58 AM

This statement in the Sterophile review worries me
"Which brings me to the DAC202's shortcomings. While it succeeded at presenting music with no trace of traditional "digital" sound, the Weiss lacked a bit of jump factor, excitement, and involvement. Sure, a component can sound "exciting" because of a tipped-up treble or harmonic dryness, but that's not what I'm talking about."

Which is excatly what I heard with the highly acclaimed Berkley dac and Ayre 7 or 9 also, super smooth clean no distortion. But it was trounced by a 1998 California Audio Labs CL15 which had the jump factor in spades and dynamic swing to make the Berkly sound dynamically challenged, but it was not as smooth. As it a good old PCM1702's in the Cal.
I have found I don't like todays super dacs (deta sigma) or whatever, they are smooth but lack life, jump factor, or whatever you want to call it. They claim better dynamic range on paper but to my ear cannot deliver it.
Gimee the good old PCM56 68 1702 1704 hooked up to a PMD100 or 200 any day warts and all over these new super dacs, I have not heard them yet make real dynamic music.

Cheers George

abraxalito 9th January 2012 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgehifi (Post 2853064)
I have found I don't like todays super dacs (deta sigma) or whatever, they are smooth but lack life, jump factor, or whatever you want to call it. They claim better dynamic range on paper but to my ear cannot deliver it.

I have to agree with you George :) I think its because the dynamic range measurement is a relatively long-term average and our ears are sensitive to much shorter time scales. So we pick up the noise modulation inherent in the heavy degrees of re-quantization necessarily involved.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:42 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2