Leo, I'll be waiting for your results, thanks for volunteering 
I can't wait for the magic sauce that Mr. Kubik et al has produced. After all, it has taken them nearly 5 years to produce a DAC from a chip that is so old that it is not even funny. Since it's still vapourware, I hope you don't have to wait five more. By then it will be obsolete and therefore, priceless and rare.
The funny thing is I already have a CS 4398 (on a E-mu 1212m) and the first iteration of the Buffalo, both on slightly less-than-perfect power supplies and with opamps for the output stage (so, level playing field), and the Buffalo simply wipes the floor with the Crystal chip, with both hands tied behind its back, and blindfolded. The increase in resolution and detail is mindboggling, and both cost me very similar amounts of money.
Anyway, hoping to see the end of a long development period result in a product that revolutionises the way we listen to music. Finally, I can have Eric Clapton play in my living room through a DAC that has taken years and years of painstaking research and swapping of millions of components to find the magic balance that all audiophiles strive for.
There, see, lovely ad copy, too
I can't wait for the magic sauce that Mr. Kubik et al has produced. After all, it has taken them nearly 5 years to produce a DAC from a chip that is so old that it is not even funny. Since it's still vapourware, I hope you don't have to wait five more. By then it will be obsolete and therefore, priceless and rare.
The funny thing is I already have a CS 4398 (on a E-mu 1212m) and the first iteration of the Buffalo, both on slightly less-than-perfect power supplies and with opamps for the output stage (so, level playing field), and the Buffalo simply wipes the floor with the Crystal chip, with both hands tied behind its back, and blindfolded. The increase in resolution and detail is mindboggling, and both cost me very similar amounts of money.
Anyway, hoping to see the end of a long development period result in a product that revolutionises the way we listen to music. Finally, I can have Eric Clapton play in my living room through a DAC that has taken years and years of painstaking research and swapping of millions of components to find the magic balance that all audiophiles strive for.
There, see, lovely ad copy, too
Last edited:
I'll wait until the pcb for this dac is available , once built I'll pit it directly against the Sabre32s (which should have fully upgraded Paul Hynes regulation by then)
Opinions of actual comparison will then be posted
What DAC are you talking about?
If it is the Elabs digilog CS4398 discrete DAC it´s been around for weeks. Just go ahead. The BOM is nicely low, if you do it yourself, the schematics are on the net. The assembly is pretty complicated though. So it looks like a nice challenge to any hard core DIYér with time to spare, so what are you waiting for
.But anyway!
This thread is about how good is the Buffalo DAC.
It should be obvious by now, that I do not find the implementation of the ESS Sabre DAC ambitious. It looks like nothing else than AN with a little twist. I think no listening has gone into it.
And I also think that 600$ - 1 is pretty pricy for this kind of stuff.
Go for the avaluation board, schematics are found here http://www.esstech.com/PDF/Sabre_8_2Channel_64PIN_V3_SCH.pdf
AP notes are found here: http://www.esstech.com/PDF/Application_Note_Component_Selection_and_PCB_Layout.pdf
Then why don´t you tell mr. Richidoo then.Leo, I'll be waiting for your results, thanks for volunteering
I can't wait for the magic sauce that Mr. Kubik et al has produced. After all, it has taken them nearly 5 years to produce a DAC from a chip that is so old that it is not even funny. Since it's still vapourware, I hope you don't have to wait five more. By then it will be obsolete and therefore, priceless and rare.
The funny thing is I already have a CS 4398 (on a E-mu 1212m) and the first iteration of the Buffalo, both on slightly less-than-perfect power supplies and with opamps for the output stage (so, level playing field), and the Buffalo simply wipes the floor with the Crystal chip, with both hands tied behind its back, and blindfolded. The increase in resolution and detail is mindboggling, and both cost me very similar amounts of money.
Anyway, hoping to see the end of a long development period result in a product that revolutionises the way we listen to music. Finally, I can have Eric Clapton play in my living room through a DAC that has taken years and years of painstaking research and swapping of millions of components to find the magic balance that all audiophiles strive for.
There, see, lovely ad copy, too
He obviously prefers an Outdated Crystal DAC to the Buffalo.
I wonder if you can think of any reason why?
Because he is comfortable and familiar with it?
Because it suits his costs?
Because he has found a working solution for it?
Because he has ordered large quantities of boards an ancillaries for it?
Because the solution is not yet on the table for the new breed of chips?
Because he is not interested in upgrading his product every two years, obsoleting an entire product in one fell swoop?
So, since you claim to know the real reason, what exactly is the real reaosn - because it is the best DAC chip in the world? Note that I own a CS4398 myself and it's not bad, but it has been surpassed and bettered long ago. While you were working on the solution.
I admire your tenacity in rubbishing other people's effort and lauding your own. That is really not wise business strategy. I don't know who else is building your product, but I hope that it is much better than your attitude. You have zero credibility when you comment on something you have no experience of.
*I think*, for example, that your design took a long time to build because you didn't even know how to begin and you took the first four years figuring out how to make the output stage stable or why your efforts sounded terrible and got worse every time you changed something. See how far we can stretch the phrase "I think"?
Have a nice day.
I think we all know your views, and that you have made every point you could make. Now just wait, in silence, and we will read the results of Leo's findings in due time; he can be trusted to be impartial. In the meantime I would suggest that you get a few more DACs and boards available for audition rather than continue to bang the drum about other products which you do not like!
Right you are not!
If you take a Hyundai to the garage and lift it up to have a look at the suspension of it, you´ll know excactly why the ride is just as it is.
If you do the same to a BMW you´ll know excactly the same, just the ride is pretty much different.
The Buffalo is made excactly the same way as 95% of all DACs are, just as the Hyundai is made in the same way as just around 95% of all cars are. Hence the ride in the BMW is deffinately different, thank God the Almighty.
I wonder why anyone can think that audio design is that simple???
What then is the reason why Esoteric, Denon, Wadia, Krell and others only offer discrete design in their < 10.000$ models?
What DAC are you talking about?
If it is the Elabs digilog CS4398 discrete DAC it´s been around for weeks. Just go ahead. The BOM is nicely low, if you do it yourself, the schematics are on the net. The assembly is pretty complicated though. So it looks like a nice challenge to any hard core DIYér with time to spare, so what are you waiting for
[/url]
The one which has been hyped http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149676&page=8
I'm waiting for price details for the bare pcb's and detailed BOM according to above link
Because he is comfortable and familiar with it?
Because it suits his costs?
Because he has found a working solution for it?
Because he has ordered large quantities of boards an ancillaries for it?
Because the solution is not yet on the table for the new breed of chips?
Because he is not interested in upgrading his product every two years, obsoleting an entire product in one fell swoop?
So, since you claim to know the real reason, what exactly is the real reaosn - because it is the best DAC chip in the world? Note that I own a CS4398 myself and it's not bad, but it has been surpassed and bettered long ago. While you were working on the solution.
I admire your tenacity in rubbishing other people's effort and lauding your own. That is really not wise business strategy. I don't know who else is building your product, but I hope that it is much better than your attitude. You have zero credibility when you comment on something you have no experience of.
*I think*, for example, that your design took a long time to build because you didn't even know how to begin and you took the first four years figuring out how to make the output stage stable or why your efforts sounded terrible and got worse every time you changed something. See how far we can stretch the phrase "I think"?
Have a nice day.
Well I think that Richidoo prefers the Oracle as a result of a better analog design, and maybe also better PSU design.
If the 4398 is surpassed I do not know, the ESS chip has better dynamic performance, but that might be a result of a lot of DACs paralleled, which with ease could be done with any other chip as well. But still the dynamic behavior of the CS4398, is allready way beyond what can ever be acvhieved in discrete analog design anyway.
The real strength in the ESS chip, as I see it, is that it replaces 4 chips with just one. That makes it much easier to design PSU and to route a board for it.
About the business strategy, it does not exist, we are enthusiasts designing for ourselves, maybe sometimes with a few drop offs for people interested.
Buffalo is a commercial product, and my attitude towards that is critical, as yours also should be to a product @ 599$ which consists of components for a few bucks, a PCB and no R&D, just a standard modern school op-amp solution by the book, and the PSU´s are up to you. You are paying for something that is not there.
The point in a forum like this should not be, that you only can write about products which you praise for technical achievements and sound quality. A DIYér should IMHO be able to look at some electronics and ask the question "what is this in fact, how much would it cost, what is the secret about it´s engineering and so on. Look at the Cambridge DAC Magic, it´s a complete DAC sold @ 400$ through hifi stores. If the ESS chip had been used it would deffinately be cheaper and maybe even better, as the ESS Sabre is said to be next to nothing.
And even more important, a DIYér with experience will never listen to the "you did not even listen to it" remark. As you simply do not need to listen to every op-amp design, to know their sound. They never sound catastrophic, and they never excel.
The time spent in our project, which still is not the object for this thread, was 4½ years after the first prototype was on a fully funktional SMD PCB and playing music. It was both stable and looking really nice. Only problem was that it obviously had potential, but I did not like it. Actually I hated it as I was disapointed with the result. I´m glad I did, because now I know how far patience and hard work can take you.
Last edited:
I see you keep raising the price with every post you make.. Hope that's not indicative of the pricing policy you'll adopt in your own DAC...
Buffalo 32S is $449.
The application notes and engineering samples you mention refer to the 24bit chip and, in fact, the 24bit version of Buffalo was cheaper than the evaluation board.
What I really like is how easy it is for you to judge the design decisions of the TP guys when you've never even touched the thing, no to mention looking at the schematic (which is not published atm). I know, I know..
You saw it uses opamps, the evaluation edition uses opamps, all opamp DACs sound the same so Buffalo 32S is the same as the evaluation edition.. Not exactly what we call sound logic where I come from, but if it works for you, who am I to judge you?
I wonder where you get this information from? The ESS9018 cost me $77 - much more expensive than the Crystal part. You also say that the only thing about the ESS chip that stands out is that it parallels 4 DACs together. If you had bothered to inform yourself before expressing your opinion, you would know that is not the case. You can get a white paper from ESS that outlines some of their unique technology.
Of course they will. You promote the importance of listening over measurements, then are happy to criticize something you haven't listened to. This is nothing short of prejudice.
Last edited:
Not prejudice, arrogant stupidity! Why are you still here Kurt? GO AWAY
[/QUOTE]Curly,
,
I agree with you re last line (only) of your post!
I see you keep raising the price with every post you make.. Hope that's not indicative of the pricing policy you'll adopt in your own DAC...
Buffalo 32S is $449.
The application notes and engineering samples you mention refer to the 24bit chip and, in fact, the 24bit version of Buffalo was cheaper than the evaluation board.
What I really like is how easy it is for you to judge the design decisions of the TP guys when you've never even touched the thing, no to mention looking at the schematic (which is not published atm). I know, I know..
You saw it uses opamps, the evaluation edition uses opamps, all opamp DACs sound the same so Buffalo 32S is the same as the evaluation edition.. Not exactly what we call sound logic where I come from, but if it works for you, who am I to judge you?
And let me guess!
The application note will be excactly the same for the 32 bit version.
I do not have any need of looking at the schematics, they do not even include a PSU, letting that up to the DIYér , that is more than enough for me.
Yes op-amps sound terrible all of them, that is no secret, and that is why you will find the top of the line DAC´s, preamps and other stuff done without them.
Op-amps stink and everybody in the profession knows it, but they are cheap, easy to use and they are never serious disasters.
And best of all, you and other DIYérs loving them, are speaking for them, which is almost invaluable for designers. They save time, money, effort and even gain prestige if they are using the latest models.
Holy Moly if the task really was that easy.
And now for the 1.000$ question: Who do you think asked for the schematics of our analog design including our discrete common base design - the name starts as already mentioned with a D - next is an U.
I´ve said none of what you say I did.
The ESS is a lot cheaper than all the chips it has to replace, CS8416, AD1896 and CS4398, and that is a fact.
On top of this you need only 2 discrete high speed regulators for the ESS, The whole bunch of CS and AD chips need 5 at least.
The ESS features a bunch of parelleled DACs and so it is, but I´m not critical to this, but that also could be done with other chips, which i.e. Accuphase does. You can ad 6 dB of DNR each time you put in another chip.
I simply DON´T want to hear that crap about " you did not listen to it" from you.
I´ve listened to way to many op-amps, and that´s final. They stink all together, and are the main reason why HIFI is so unambitious today.
Every designer knows that, but they hate building discrete designs, because it is the most time consuming task known in electronics.
Not prejudice, arrogant stupidity! Why are you still here Kurt? GO AWAY
[/QUOTE]I repeat!
Op-amps sucks.
If you are really that unambitious and ignorant, why are you not just buying some Samsung thing or likely.
My point is: Why on earth settle for this completely standard of the book design, which noone ever bothered to listen to anyway.
On top of that, it will sound completely different with different powersupplies.
How can anyone defend such a thing?
Just think about that.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.