Hello,
In the last ~ 10 years I have built a few DACs. A NOS PCM63 was quite good, I had TDA1541. I had several versions of these, different feeding, different output. A few years ago I have settled at the AD1865, fed buffered from an RPI and Moode/Volumio, output to a resistor than a Lundahl interstage transformer, than triode output stage. Power amp is a 2A3 PSE.
I had some (not very expensive, about under 4k EUR) commercial DACs and those could not beat it. On the other hand, I never had a top line DAC compared to it. I never had an ES9038 listened to.
I know the question is more complex, the DAC chip is just one thing. But, if you assume similar surrounding, do you think if I would replace the AD1865 section with an ES9038, would that be better?
The reason why I'm searching, I can not say that I enjoy listening through the DAC as I do from LP. I spent a lot of time to reach the level of a really good CD player (what most commercial DAC just can not do I think), but far away from the LP. I know it is a different world, but still, why not keep trying to reach further? Also, when I listen to high resolution audio (O.K., my DAC ignores above 18bits, but keeps up with high sample rates) of the same record, the difference is marginal sometime. Not on those high res demo records where it is so obvious, somehow they made it very significant, but on a general record.
So, do you guys has any suggestion?
Which DAC chip is considered to be the best on the market nowdays?
Thanks,
JG
In the last ~ 10 years I have built a few DACs. A NOS PCM63 was quite good, I had TDA1541. I had several versions of these, different feeding, different output. A few years ago I have settled at the AD1865, fed buffered from an RPI and Moode/Volumio, output to a resistor than a Lundahl interstage transformer, than triode output stage. Power amp is a 2A3 PSE.
I had some (not very expensive, about under 4k EUR) commercial DACs and those could not beat it. On the other hand, I never had a top line DAC compared to it. I never had an ES9038 listened to.
I know the question is more complex, the DAC chip is just one thing. But, if you assume similar surrounding, do you think if I would replace the AD1865 section with an ES9038, would that be better?
The reason why I'm searching, I can not say that I enjoy listening through the DAC as I do from LP. I spent a lot of time to reach the level of a really good CD player (what most commercial DAC just can not do I think), but far away from the LP. I know it is a different world, but still, why not keep trying to reach further? Also, when I listen to high resolution audio (O.K., my DAC ignores above 18bits, but keeps up with high sample rates) of the same record, the difference is marginal sometime. Not on those high res demo records where it is so obvious, somehow they made it very significant, but on a general record.
So, do you guys has any suggestion?
Which DAC chip is considered to be the best on the market nowdays?
Thanks,
JG
I'm not sure there is any consensus about which DAC chip is the 'best' one, its more a matter of taste. R2R DACs sound (a generalization) a bit 'soft' whereas segmented DACs tend to sound clearer. I'd very much doubt you'd find an ESS DAC fitting your taste as you come from comparison with LP, but that's as much a reflection on the kinds of output stage that get used with the chip as a comment on the chip itself.
If you're up for experimenting I'd modify one of your multibit DACs with I-out to use an active I/V stage in conjunction with a passive filter prior.
If you're up for experimenting I'd modify one of your multibit DACs with I-out to use an active I/V stage in conjunction with a passive filter prior.
Hi , just a question , if the AD1865 upsamples everything 16 x , how do you make a NOS dac out of that chip ?
Hi Giordano,
I have AD1865, ESS9038pro and BB1794 based chips. I build all three with the same tube output stage and power supplies and guess what? They sound remarkably similar. In my lounge I use an ESS9038pro based DAC, not because of its superior sound quality but because it's very easy to implement its lossless volume control with remote, while in my studio I use the AD1865 or BB1794 ones. It is true that in absolute terms the ESS gives a tiny bit more detail whereas the other two are more analogue like, but the difference really is small.
David
I have AD1865, ESS9038pro and BB1794 based chips. I build all three with the same tube output stage and power supplies and guess what? They sound remarkably similar. In my lounge I use an ESS9038pro based DAC, not because of its superior sound quality but because it's very easy to implement its lossless volume control with remote, while in my studio I use the AD1865 or BB1794 ones. It is true that in absolute terms the ESS gives a tiny bit more detail whereas the other two are more analogue like, but the difference really is small.
David
more impact to the sound will add output stages after dac chip.
People constantly using same, un-measured output, Riv - Transformer - optionally gain stage. Without ANY test of the source impedance, corrected ringing of interstage transformer, and propper tube or other gain stage.
.
Without any simple basic measurements... In most cases phase is opposite.
.
First mesaure and calculate source generator resistance (output impedance). That data is vital to choose interstage transformer primary inductance for good low F and small phase shigt in low F.
.
second with analog generator adjusted to same source impedance like dac generate 10 to 20KHz square and find values of the RC net on the secondary. With input capacitance of the next stage (Cdynamic of the tube for instance) and Rg of the tube input stage.
.
Bare in mind that for the current output dacs converted voltage @Riv is in opposite phase. So the single ended tube gain stage will also give 180deg phase shift to give right phase at the output. So interstage transformer should be connected in phase.
.
The phsae in ballnced topogies behaves the same. I listened too many Riv-transformer coupled dacs nad CD mods, almost from the start of "NOS madness" before 3 decades, but almost all of them was "thiny" without proper bass, and harsh uncorrected highs
.
Also my oppinion that some kind of analog filtering should be present, and probably some buffer after the tube stage, which ususaly have high output impedance and will cut-out the high F in conjuction with tipically very high values of potetntiometers in next preamplifier or power amplifier tube devices.
.
My advice is firs to finish the proper output stage then change the dac units.
Also digital part before dac chip is vital for the sound signature. Clocks, power supplu, noise etc. But that is another story.
People constantly using same, un-measured output, Riv - Transformer - optionally gain stage. Without ANY test of the source impedance, corrected ringing of interstage transformer, and propper tube or other gain stage.
.
Without any simple basic measurements... In most cases phase is opposite.
.
First mesaure and calculate source generator resistance (output impedance). That data is vital to choose interstage transformer primary inductance for good low F and small phase shigt in low F.
.
second with analog generator adjusted to same source impedance like dac generate 10 to 20KHz square and find values of the RC net on the secondary. With input capacitance of the next stage (Cdynamic of the tube for instance) and Rg of the tube input stage.
.
Bare in mind that for the current output dacs converted voltage @Riv is in opposite phase. So the single ended tube gain stage will also give 180deg phase shift to give right phase at the output. So interstage transformer should be connected in phase.
.
The phsae in ballnced topogies behaves the same. I listened too many Riv-transformer coupled dacs nad CD mods, almost from the start of "NOS madness" before 3 decades, but almost all of them was "thiny" without proper bass, and harsh uncorrected highs
.
Also my oppinion that some kind of analog filtering should be present, and probably some buffer after the tube stage, which ususaly have high output impedance and will cut-out the high F in conjuction with tipically very high values of potetntiometers in next preamplifier or power amplifier tube devices.
.
My advice is firs to finish the proper output stage then change the dac units.
Also digital part before dac chip is vital for the sound signature. Clocks, power supplu, noise etc. But that is another story.
Taken from the AD1865 datasheet
FEATURES
Dual Serial Input, Voltage Output DACs
No External Components Required
110 dB SNR
0.003% THD+N
Operates at 16 x Oversampling per Channel
65 Volt Operation
Cophased Outputs
116 dB Channel Separation
Pin Compatible with AD1864
DIP or SOIC Packaging
FEATURES
Dual Serial Input, Voltage Output DACs
No External Components Required
110 dB SNR
0.003% THD+N
Operates at 16 x Oversampling per Channel
65 Volt Operation
Cophased Outputs
116 dB Channel Separation
Pin Compatible with AD1864
DIP or SOIC Packaging
Last edited:
Sixty five volts?
Ah so the +- character got turned into a 6 and the X got turned into a 3 (which you've now corrected)
The 16X oversampling is a capability, not something built in to the chip.
Ah so the +- character got turned into a 6 and the X got turned into a 3 (which you've now corrected)
The 16X oversampling is a capability, not something built in to the chip.
Last edited:
Chips are not alone, the layout is very important in the whole result as the pcb design. The digital front end makes huge difference, as much as the output or I/V stage when using the chips with their current output.
I will give a chance yet to the tda1541 but with a sota enough pcb, Just one imho in the diy field is worthing it for many reasons : Aya Dac, clever pcb design in relation to the choices made, all discrete multiple power supply/regs, while it's a transconductance oap design nothing should stop you to tube it or going diamond discrete with matched parts!
As the question is mainly on the dac chip, I would give a chance too for the ad1862 (which is a step better in the neutrality and bass than the pcm63 still too much colored), chips became rare though can be find at Rochester or at GB or swap met section, Maybe an ideal compromise between both is something I like a lot both for definition and music : the old PCM56.
I didn't have the chance to compare them to the last good commercial product available with ESS chip like the Okto dac for instance (it has a hype because the price while seems simple design when you see what inside the bully, but the ones that enter at home to compete with my tda1541 AYA dac seriously modded on the front end and power supply throw them all trough the window...
Now I agree it's always a trade off with what you have around, not an easy thing...
I will give a chance yet to the tda1541 but with a sota enough pcb, Just one imho in the diy field is worthing it for many reasons : Aya Dac, clever pcb design in relation to the choices made, all discrete multiple power supply/regs, while it's a transconductance oap design nothing should stop you to tube it or going diamond discrete with matched parts!
As the question is mainly on the dac chip, I would give a chance too for the ad1862 (which is a step better in the neutrality and bass than the pcm63 still too much colored), chips became rare though can be find at Rochester or at GB or swap met section, Maybe an ideal compromise between both is something I like a lot both for definition and music : the old PCM56.
I didn't have the chance to compare them to the last good commercial product available with ESS chip like the Okto dac for instance (it has a hype because the price while seems simple design when you see what inside the bully, but the ones that enter at home to compete with my tda1541 AYA dac seriously modded on the front end and power supply throw them all trough the window...
Now I agree it's always a trade off with what you have around, not an easy thing...
Last edited:
In my experience the best you can get in a DIY context is to dispense with conventional DAC chips and go the DSD route - I have a 'Valve DAC' and a DSC2 and they are both exceptional. Both are the subject of threads here.