I just tried to say that where music is recorded, in microphone preamplifiers, in mixing consoles, in A/D-converters, opamps are used to a large degree. Not always. Not in all studios or recording venues. But very often does the music signal pass through several opamps and several tens of meters cable before stamped as a CD, pressed as an LP or swirling around the Internet as a FLAC file.
This is what is used in the studios.
If that is because integrated opamp designs only are what is available, is another matter in my view.
Good luck changing this. Is it possible to explain to the suits that discrete sounds better? And still meets the budget.
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
So, when you are trying to find out if the CS or the ESS chip is best, you make an A-B test in design that you don't believe to be very good
How about testdriving cars, to find the best one... Will you do this with a puncture on all 4 wheels, to ensure that none of them performs optimum?
Hmm all this time you keep claiming that you aren't trying to sell a product but this last paragraph sure sounds like it. Sure you say we can get the PCB's but all this time you've kept saying that it's not really a good DIY project because it's complicated and such. Now the truth comes out
You also said several weeks ago that the PCB's were ready and now they are "almost" ready.
You really do not understand... We are NOT offering these chassis at $500. The $500 is what we paid to our local CNC machine shop pr chassis.
The chassis 100% CNC machined. Side panels, mid-panel and front is made of 10mm alu. Top and bottom is 5mm alu. This really makes a nice non-resonant home for the PCB's.
But you might as well forget to buy this chassis from us!
About the $450 for PCB... Well, we did not consider selling these DAC's, since it is a DIY project. But since we do have 15 PCB's, we might as well let more people enjoy the sound of no op-amps
But if you really do not like that, we could just stop that offer right now. Is that what you are after?? Please let me know... Then I do not need to finish the documentation
Well... at $449 for a PCB with a less than $20 DAC chip, some op-amps, resistors and capacitors, you should be able to make some $$$$$
I say that the BOM cost of the Buffalo is less than $200.
But let's ask TPA... Show us the complete BOM, and let's see how little the margin is...
you don't believe to be very good
A puncture is failure mode.
The above setups are not pushing the chip to failure. They are differing implementations, differing from what you see fit for a particular component. They can be improved upon, but they work.
I don't see your point, it seems an example of extremism.
The CS4398 is an old DAC that does not have good enough performance to the new breed of chips. It is a mainstream offering, with mainstream performance. Witness 60 dollar soundcards carrying it. I agree that implementation will make a pretty big difference to the overall performance, but the chip is not positioned at the pinnacle any more.
The point is, that even in implementations less than optimal, the ESS chip (and mind, mine is the first iteration) leaves the CS4398 so far behind it is not even funny.
I think what posters here are continuously trying to tell you (actually, not really you but your better half) is that this is a thread directed at owners of the Buffalo or those who have experience with it, asking them a very simple question - "How good is this product?"
And instead we get a thread that is filled with replies from someone who has absolutely no experience with the product, berating it by looking at it and jumping to conclusions. A circuit is not a painting or an assembly of parts - any designer would know that. I could do the same to any particular product from anyone else on these boards (including yours), it costs me nothing to do so except my dignity and respect in the community, which is what it is costing you.
Is the Buffalo the ultimate DAC in the world? Of course not. Will yours be? I highly doubt it, given the heart is past its best, let alone the wonderful hands and legs you've added.
What I do not like is that you guys are coming across as shills and haters, which really, you should not be taken as as you do contribute to this forum otherwise. I am sure you have designed a great product, but to be fair, so have Russ and Brian. If you had heard or owned the Buffalo and then rained on the parade, well, that would have been OK. Disappointing, but OK, because you would have come from the point of view of experience. Instead you have seen some photographs and started berating it. This is not art critique. That is my only point.
Have a nice day.
And btw, when I test drive a car, I generally check it with a bunch of very large people sitting in it, and then push a the car a little closer to its limits than most 'test drivers' do. No relationship to audio at all, maybe you need to hunt for other analogies?
Yes a puncture is a failure, and so are op-amps.
many of them has an open loop gain linear from DC to around 10 Hz, that´s in my world a puncture.
Who are you actually to say that the Crystal flagship DAC is an old bad performing chip.
I know for sure it is not, as I know the same about BB and AD´s flagship chips. They came about some 5 years ago, and the only thing that is now changing is the resolution enhancement from 24 to 32 bits, and the voltage goes down from 5V (AD chips - 3,3 or 2,5 V Crystal semi).
Crystal will naturally be more common in lower price equipment as i.e. studio and pro gear, as they are much cheaper to implement.
The ESS is probably aiming at exactly that, because it will be even cheaper, as it replaces the reciever chip, the up-sampler, the DAC chip and eventually the µC, and it eliminates the need for a lot of different supplies.
The latest ESS chip even takes away the need for an analog stage, as also this is included and running on 3,3V.
The ESS is in fact the cheap solution, so I think you´ll see a lot of soundcards use it, though maybe the one with the build in analog stage as their favourite.
If you think the ESS performs great in the Buffalo design, RIP with that.
You obviously do not need anymore.
I am not to say anything about ESS Sabre DAC as I did not try it out, but I consider myself pretty experienced throughout op-amps. And they stink alltogether, no matter how great supplies they get. The miracle that has to happen is, that someone will invent a DAC chip, doing so, that when you connect one specific op-amp with specific PCB layout and specific supplies to it, it will neutralise all the drawbacks of this specific op-amp. ESS does not do that, they specify data for at least 4 different op-amps, as it obviously was not designed to neutralise the native flaws of these chips.
If the ESS DAC really is a top performer then in my experience no one will ever know, if not preceeded by a second to none analog stage, capable of effortless and easy drive of both cables and preamps.
I don't know what music you will be able to listen to then, as most mixing boards and mic preamps in major studios have had opamps since the early 90s, maybe even earlier.
I do not say the CS4398 is a bad performing chip. I say it cannot compare to the newer breed of chips. I really think this discussion is about *relative* performance, not *absolutes*.
Thank you. I think it would do good to try it out. You obviously have the capabilities to do so as well as the experience, so it would be good to see and hear another implementation.
I think it is good enough for me, and I think it beats the E-mu 1212m by a country mile. The E-mu1212m in turn beats the Asus Xonar DX pretty handily, even though both have the CS4398. I am sure yours will beat the E-mu 1212m, given the care and attention to the layout. Will it beat the Buffalo? Who knows? It may or it may not. The superior performance of the analog stage (supposedly) in your design may be able to ameliorate the shortcomings of the DAC itself. I don't know. And that is what I will not comment on, I prefer to experience something myself before commenting on it.
Have a nice day
Answering your question, let me quote my private personal ranking of DACs that I have now or had evaluated:
1. BUF32S w/o opamps + LL1527 + ALWSR regs
2. Two different Behringer SRC 2496 highly modified, ONE opamp only or trafos
3. JVC K2/PCM56
4. BUF32S unmodified with opamps and standard PSU
5. Behringer SRC unmodified
6. DAC1 and others below 1k
Hope that helps
THE ESS9018 is considerably more expensive than CS4398, AD1896, CS8416. In addition, it needs very high quality supplies to get the best out of it due to its low PSRR.
Cool.
What a short memory you have.
I've listened to the Sabre chips direct coupled, with opamp stages, a discrete stage and transformer coupled. In my informed opinion, it is capable of sound great with a range of implementations, including opamps.
This thread is closed for now. We will evaluate the posts made here.- Status
- Not open for further replies.