PCM1704 NOS vs Buffalo III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
LuisMCP

LuisMCP

Member
Joined 2001
#1
I have been comparing these DACs.

PCM1704:
Amanero USB + diyinhk USB isolator
FIFO + FIFO Isolator
Dual XO
Crystek CCHD957 XO
Universal I2S to PCM converter
PCM1704 NOS DAC
2 x LME49710 as IV converter

Buffalo III:
Placid PSU
Placid BP PSU
Amanero USB + diynhk USB isolator
Buffalo III DAC
Legato 3 I/V

Three times, in different days with three different persons, PCM1704 was better in resolution, better highs and bass, with wide soundstage and more natural and involving sound.

I know, ES9018 can be configured in multiple ways, and this Buffalo III too, but with this configuration I (and others) clearly preffer pcm1704 over Buffalo.

(BIII pic is not up to date: diyink isolator is missing.)

This is only my own impressions
 

Attachments

  • DSC_4074.jpg
    DSC_4074.jpg
    218.3 KB · Views: 952
  • DSC_3913.jpg
    DSC_3913.jpg
    229.5 KB · Views: 934
#2
I have also the two DACs the only difference is that my PCM1704 don't have FIFO + FIFO isolator because cost a lot of money and I don't know it's perfomance. You are right PCM1704 is better the only thing is can't play DSD files like the Sabre. Have you tried to use the PCM1704 with the Legato & the BIII with the LME49710? Could you post the schematic used PCM1704 & LME49710?
 
#5
merlin el mago said:
I have also the two DACs the only difference is that my PCM1704 don't have FIFO + FIFO isolator because cost a lot of money and I don't know it's perfomance. You are right PCM1704 is better the only thing is can't play DSD files like the Sabre. Have you tried to use the PCM1704 with the Legato & the BIII with the LME49710? Could you post the schematic used PCM1704 & LME49710?
Click to expand...

My setup I believe is the most simple anybody can imagine.
I/V converter has a BW of 100 kHz (-1dB) in my sims.
 

Attachments

  • LME49710 iv.PNG
    LME49710 iv.PNG
    13.4 KB · Views: 866
  • pcm1704.png
    pcm1704.png
    19.9 KB · Views: 877
#6
#12
maybe the FIFO make a lot of difference between the 2 config ?
I mean, I m using a Vanity 93 fifo in my oppo and i can say that gives difference when using just an ES9023, directly from oppo or from the vanity...?

any chance you could update us on a test without the fifo, just to make sure pcm is still a killer 🙂
 
#13
maxidcx said:
maybe the FIFO make a lot of difference between the 2 config ?
I mean, I m using a Vanity 93 fifo in my oppo and i can say that gives difference when using just an ES9023, directly from oppo or from the vanity...?

any chance you could update us on a test without the fifo, just to make sure pcm is still a killer 🙂
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but in these days I'm testing another setup with a very simpler DAC, pcm1704 based, without FIFO and NOS mode.

This DAC is a simple Shift Register and Reclocking, and yes, it still sounds better when compared to Buffalo III.

On the other hand, PSU's are by far better in Buffalo that mine, and Legato or ivy3 I believe are better that my simple I/V converter too.

I will try to do a direct comparison between pcm1704 with and without FIFO if possible.

The non FIFO version has an Amanero interface in Slave mode with Crystek CCHD-957 XO's, and I'm wondering if this approach is better than FIFO. At the moment it seems to me that the two are very similar and are very close.
 
#15
LuisMCP said:
The non FIFO version has an Amanero interface in Slave mode with Crystek CCHD-957 XO's, and I'm wondering if this approach is better than FIFO. At the moment it seems to me that the two are very similar and are very close.
Click to expand...
Nice setup, though I would shorten the cable between I2S-PCM and DAC board or use u-fl cables.

How do you select between the two XOs when Amanero is in Slave mode - are you using Ian's clock board for this, somehow? IMO FIFO vs. Amanero in slave should sound pretty close as Amanero is async.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom