AK4499EQ - Best DAC ever

Different dac structures have different responses to jitter. So, e.g. for multi bit dacs the proven way of achieving low jitter might be by multiplication of a lower frequency, lower phase noise clock. Certain dacs respond differently to that. The data only aplies to a certain dac type or topology and not necessarily to others (as much).
So to take proven jitter figures of a clock as a black and white in it's meaning for the SQ of a dac is a hard thing to do.
Which contemporary DAC do you know of that has high enough of jitter to cause audible difference in level matched double blind listening test?

When measuring an amp, and comparing damping factor, do differences of that tell you how it will play out sonically when hooked up to a real life load, or are its measurements, double blind verified, only aplicable to sq when output impedance is equivalent?
Feedback changes the frequency response, in onteraction with the load. Only in isolation should one claim one amp being more transparent, more HiFi, over the other, as you claim, yet we hook them up with real loads and frequency response might change enough to claim otherwise.

Just a few examples of why opinions might differ from "scientifically proven" data.

In other words, we know less than we think we do, mainly because we measure data that are a result of very strict rules and by that are of high resolution, but only within a small boundary that resolution, that meaning applies: once you hook up your clock or amp to a different dac or load, it's extracted data might be less or even no use at all anymore.

So no, it ain't all proven to the N-th times. Many things are, but not nearly all.
That's your claim which you are free to post. Are you aware that two solid state amps with measurable differences didn't make audible difference to people in level matched double blind listening test? In other words, contemporary measuring devices are far more sensitive than our hearing.
 
trung224,
AK4499 eval board is actually populated with single 470uf caps, what appear to be UCC standard types. The schematic shows two 220 uf in parallel.

What those caps do depends in part on whether or not the 10-ohm resistors are there. In any case, its a sensitive location for caps. To the extent they have a characteristic sound, IME it can be heard at the dac output.

Thanks Mark for correcting my error. So the AK4499 eval board uses exactly the solution of AK44997 eval board with 470 uF.

In the datasheet, AKM suggest 1-ohm resistors between VREFH & analog 5V, do they really use 10-ohm resistor in eval board?
 
I know IMD is related to HD in that they are caused by the same mechanisms. Nelson calls it the elephant on the dance floor because it is more of an issue than HD. I asked about IMD in general terms, I didn't specify any amp, because you mentioned only HD as if that's all that matters. You now know IMD is more audible than HD, you should be happy :)
 
Good to know, since I'm not able to predict anything based on the measurements I'm very curious about your predictions.

Please, predict the sound characteristics of the following DACs:
- Naim Audio CD3 (TDA1541A/SAA7220)
- Audio Note DAC5 (AD1865)
- Soekris DAM1021 (discrete R2R)
- Buffalo-IIIsePro38 async mode (ES9038Pro)
- Buffalo-IIIsePro38 pure sync mode (ES9038Pro)

And the following amps:
- First Watt F1 (IRFP240)
- Audio Note Ongaku (211)
- Hypex NCore NC500 (Class-D)
I did ask Evenharmonics to predict the sound characteristics because he claimed to be able.
Aren't you supposed to include the specs of those components when making such request?
 
I know IMD is related to HD in that they are caused by the same mechanisms. Nelson calls it the elephant on the dance floor because it is more of an issue than HD. I asked about IMD in general terms, I didn't specify any amp, because you mentioned only HD as if that's all that matters. You now know IMD is more audible than HD, you should be happy :)

No, you don't understand, for me the THD does not matter and neither does the IMD.
First of all I rely on listening.
 
Then why are you measuring oscillators phase noise down to -150dB @10Hz, has your hearing told you there's something interesting there?

Exactly, firstly I made the listening comparison between the same DAC with the Crystek and the emitter coupled oscillator some years ago.
I discovered that with the EC oscillator it did sound much better.
At that time I did not own the Timepod so I knew nothing about the phase noise of the EC oscillator, I only knew the phase noise of the Crystek oscillator from the datasheet.

Later I got the Timepod and I measured the phase noise of the EC oscillator, that was 30 dB better than the Crystek.
And the difference was in the close in phase noise since the noise floor of the Crystek was better than the EC oscillator.
Then I drew my conclusions: I have to improve the close in phase noise to get the DAC sound better.

That's the reason we have developed the Driscoll oscillator performing state of the art close in phase noise.

As soon as possible we will make a listening comparison between the EC and the SOTA Driscoll oscillators to understand if 25dB of phase noise improvement has effect on the digital to analog conversion.
 
Which contemporary DAC do you know of that has high enough of jitter to cause audible difference in level matched double blind listening test?


That's your claim which you are free to post. Are you aware that two solid state amps with measurable differences didn't make audible difference to people in level matched double blind listening test? In other words, contemporary measuring devices are far more sensitive than our hearing.

Unfortunately contemporary measurement devices fail to explain what we are hearing.

But it's my fault.
I should have avoided talking about vacuum tubes and zero feedback loop in a thread where people are obsessed with the number of zeros after the decimal point.