That is just my (educated) guess. Anyway, ESS did their homework for analog section with OpAmps:
http://www.esstech.com/PDF/Application_Note_Component_Selection_and_PCB_Layout.pdf
http://www.esstech.com/PDF/Application_Note_Component_Selection_and_PCB_Layout.pdf
What's up with the 15bit noise floor in figure 11 (slow filter mode)? Looks to me like a blooper... 
<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
<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
Last edited:
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
"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
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.- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.