chris719,
CMOS is probably the nastiest technique you can utilize in audio. CMOS allows a high packing density and a cheap and unproblematic on-chip integration. Passive components take up much silicon space and are tricky to implement. In order to avoid a lot of headache, manufacturers do everything in their power to keep the number of the more human friendly resistors to a minimum. Obviously, it is easy to persuade the public of the superiority of modern voltage mode CMOS DAC.
CMOS is probably the nastiest technique you can utilize in audio. CMOS allows a high packing density and a cheap and unproblematic on-chip integration. Passive components take up much silicon space and are tricky to implement. In order to avoid a lot of headache, manufacturers do everything in their power to keep the number of the more human friendly resistors to a minimum. Obviously, it is easy to persuade the public of the superiority of modern voltage mode CMOS DAC.
What is your best sounding DAC ever? Not just the chip but also the implementation.
The fact is, the measured performance of newer parts are superior. Keep perpetuating your myths. I do not really care about the subjective impressions of deaf old men as a group.
All good ones sound the same in properly done level-matched blind tests. I have owned and/or listened to the following: AD1865 (Rockna), TDA1543 (kit), PCM1738 (Channel Islands), AD1853 (Benchmark DAC1), AD1955 (Lavry), AK4396 (my own design), CS4398 (EMU 1820m), ES9018 (Anedio D1), AK4490 (RTX6001).
I think I've listened to a device with PCM1702 and someone's PCM56 Tent DAC also but can't recall.
It doesn't really matter because we won't agree on the audibility.
All mentioned by you produced the same sound (subjective experience) and the only difference is in numeric parameters?
I didn't test them all blind or under the same conditions, but I would say so.
I could probably tell the AD1865 DAC apart in a blind test because it was "non-OS".
- Status
- Not open for further replies.