DIR9001 vs CS8416 and poss CS8412

UV101 · 11th January 2012, 03:32 PM

Any thoughts on the sonic differences? I'm not interested in the input functionality i.e. The 8416 can accept and switch multiple inputs. I'm purely interested from an audio quality point of view.

So, what would/ do you use and why???

Thanks Ian

abraxalito · 11th January 2012, 03:42 PM

None of the above - WM8805.

UV101 · 11th January 2012, 03:47 PM

Fair enough!! Can you elaborate please.

abraxalito · 11th January 2012, 03:50 PM

Sure - I've not used one yet mind, but I am planning a design with one. The reason being the flexibility of the clocking scheme - it incorporates a frequency synthesizer which can be programmed in software. I'd not recommend it for stand-alone duty, only in conjunction with a CPU - in such cases its features really outshine the other two you mentioned in that it can still generate a nice precise clock in the absence of any incoming signal.

SoNic_real_one · 05:03 PM

DIR9001 - jitter 50ps, max SR 96kHz
WM8805 - jitter 50ps, max SR 192kHz
CS8416 - jitter 200ps,max SR 192kHz

abraxalito · 11th January 2012, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoNic_real_one

WM8805 - jitter 50ps, max SR 192kHz

If I recall correctly, only in software mode does it reach 192kHz.

UV101 · 11th January 2012, 09:32 PM

So it sounds like the WM8805 is the one to go for. Funny cos that's the only one I've not got or not looked into from a design point of view!!!

UV101 · 11th January 2012, 10:27 PM

Reading through it's looks superior but is much more complex to control. At this point, I think I need to concentrate my efforts elsewhere so the DIR might well do. In any case the plan is to make the whole DAC modular. I can revisit the input side later.

So the question changes to dir9001 or WM8805 (in h/w mode)??

SoNic_real_one · 12:24 AM

In H/W mode I think they are equal.
Other receiver that can do 192kHz is LC89058W-E. At 200pS jitter.

abraxalito · 12th January 2012, 12:51 AM

If I was doing a design where I didn't want the CPU, then my choice would be DIR9001 for ease of implementation. There's then no requirement for a well controlled sample rate clock to run the CPU's clock from in the absence of lock.

11th January 2012, 03:32 PM	#1
UV101 diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Oxford	DIR9001 vs CS8416 and poss CS8412 Any thoughts on the sonic differences? I'm not interested in the input functionality i.e. The 8416 can accept and switch multiple inputs. I'm purely interested from an audio quality point of view. So, what would/ do you use and why??? Thanks Ian __________________ When Bitstream came out, I thought, “my God, what are we going to do...?” Ken Ishiwata http://www.hifisounds.co.uk Restek Fantasy, Audio Aero Capitole MKII, Focal and Kimber "Leave Nothing as Standard"

11th January 2012, 03:42 PM	#2
abraxalito diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though... Blog Entries: 46	None of the above - WM8805. __________________ I think ideas are what you want to get rid of. I don't really like songs with ideas. - Leonard Cohen

11th January 2012, 03:47 PM	#3
UV101 diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Oxford	Fair enough!! Can you elaborate please. __________________ When Bitstream came out, I thought, “my God, what are we going to do...?” Ken Ishiwata http://www.hifisounds.co.uk Restek Fantasy, Audio Aero Capitole MKII, Focal and Kimber "Leave Nothing as Standard"

11th January 2012, 03:50 PM	#4
abraxalito diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though... Blog Entries: 46	Sure - I've not used one yet mind, but I am planning a design with one. The reason being the flexibility of the clocking scheme - it incorporates a frequency synthesizer which can be programmed in software. I'd not recommend it for stand-alone duty, only in conjunction with a CPU - in such cases its features really outshine the other two you mentioned in that it can still generate a nice precise clock in the absence of any incoming signal. __________________ I think ideas are what you want to get rid of. I don't really like songs with ideas. - Leonard Cohen

11th January 2012, 05:00 PM	#5
SoNic_real_one diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Virginia	DIR9001 - jitter 50ps, max SR 96kHz WM8805 - jitter 50ps, max SR 192kHz CS8416 - jitter 200ps,max SR 192kHz Last edited by SoNic_real_one; 11th January 2012 at 05:03 PM.


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

11th January 2012, 09:32 PM	#7
UV101 diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Oxford	So it sounds like the WM8805 is the one to go for. Funny cos that's the only one I've not got or not looked into from a design point of view!!! __________________ When Bitstream came out, I thought, “my God, what are we going to do...?” Ken Ishiwata http://www.hifisounds.co.uk Restek Fantasy, Audio Aero Capitole MKII, Focal and Kimber "Leave Nothing as Standard"

11th January 2012, 10:27 PM	#8
UV101 diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Oxford	Reading through it's looks superior but is much more complex to control. At this point, I think I need to concentrate my efforts elsewhere so the DIR might well do. In any case the plan is to make the whole DAC modular. I can revisit the input side later. So the question changes to dir9001 or WM8805 (in h/w mode)?? __________________ When Bitstream came out, I thought, “my God, what are we going to do...?” Ken Ishiwata http://www.hifisounds.co.uk Restek Fantasy, Audio Aero Capitole MKII, Focal and Kimber "Leave Nothing as Standard"

12th January 2012, 12:18 AM	#9
SoNic_real_one diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Virginia	In H/W mode I think they are equal. Other receiver that can do 192kHz is LC89058W-E. At 200pS jitter. Last edited by SoNic_real_one; 12th January 2012 at 12:24 AM.

12th January 2012, 12:51 AM	#10
abraxalito diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though... Blog Entries: 46	If I was doing a design where I didn't want the CPU, then my choice would be DIR9001 for ease of implementation. There's then no requirement for a well controlled sample rate clock to run the CPU's clock from in the absence of lock. __________________ I think ideas are what you want to get rid of. I don't really like songs with ideas. - Leonard Cohen

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A little advice if poss.....?	mashypie	Full Range	2	14th November 2010 06:13 PM
FS: DIR9001 to CS8412 converter board	spencer	Swap Meet	101	24th August 2010 09:16 AM
DIR9001 to CS8412 for sale...	sklimek	Swap Meet	1	5th April 2009 11:17 PM
DIR9001 Vs CS8416	bou	Digital Source	1	13th June 2007 12:26 PM
CS8412 or CS8416	pigoia	Digital Source	4	12th April 2007 09:03 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read