For a CD player it is enough, yes... But why show it to me as an example of the best performing converters when it clearly isn't one?
What the hell do you have against ESS marketing dept? And if you want, I can send you the NDA, you would just have to fill it and send it back to ESS...
I tell you, the published numbers are real. Russ and Brian know it too. People who bought boards know how they sound.
Trust me, trust me not, I don't give a f*.
Parallell 10-20 dacs or spend xxx$ on Anagram implementation, your taste. I just know same thing, or even better, is accomplished on a 1.5*1.5cm square. Yes these are already paralleled DAC... I don't care, ESS did it for me, it's small and convenient. Hey, aren't Anagram paralleled DACs too? Aaaaah they are too... yeah yeah.
Stop fighting right now. People working with the ESS parts know their real performance, have scientific measurements of it, know their price and convenience of use. You're free to use whatever you like, just stop bashing my ears with your "The ESS marketing dept is lying, their chips aren't up to specs", because they are, whether you like it or not.
What the hell do you have against ESS marketing dept? And if you want, I can send you the NDA, you would just have to fill it and send it back to ESS...
I tell you, the published numbers are real. Russ and Brian know it too. People who bought boards know how they sound.
Trust me, trust me not, I don't give a f*.
Parallell 10-20 dacs or spend xxx$ on Anagram implementation, your taste. I just know same thing, or even better, is accomplished on a 1.5*1.5cm square. Yes these are already paralleled DAC... I don't care, ESS did it for me, it's small and convenient. Hey, aren't Anagram paralleled DACs too? Aaaaah they are too... yeah yeah.
Stop fighting right now. People working with the ESS parts know their real performance, have scientific measurements of it, know their price and convenience of use. You're free to use whatever you like, just stop bashing my ears with your "The ESS marketing dept is lying, their chips aren't up to specs", because they are, whether you like it or not.
Last edited:
look, i just think we hit that "specs" ceiling with ad1955 , you cant really show an audio scenario when you are limited by the ad1955 specs either . All that fuss about paralleling 1955's was done because that little nonlinearity at the end of the linearity graph barely apparent to the naked eye. I LOL'd back then and I laugh right now if you excuse.
Last edited:
Hey Toufu, bet you wish you'd never asked now 
I can't answer your question directly, but the Buffalo 32S in massively superior to the crystal based 'el cheapo' I bought from ebay (even after considerable improvements, as detailed on this forum).
As a DIY solution, it is excellent, and responds well to improved PSU (over the standard LM317/337 fair)
When I listen to music, it (the buffalo) is not there. That's all I can say.
I can't answer your question directly, but the Buffalo 32S in massively superior to the crystal based 'el cheapo' I bought from ebay (even after considerable improvements, as detailed on this forum).
As a DIY solution, it is excellent, and responds well to improved PSU (over the standard LM317/337 fair)
When I listen to music, it (the buffalo) is not there. That's all I can say.
The question is, if you are looking for good specifications or good music reproduction. If you go for specifications, without doubt you must go for the op-amp!!
However... If you do want the best reproduction of mucic, you should try an good discrete non-feedback design. The scientific proff will be in your ears
If you go for the op-amp, you might as well take the cheapest commercial DAC, since they are all made almost the same way. Take a look at the Benchmark DAC 1 and Cambridge DACMagic... If you pull out the PCB and remove the price-tag, most people would believe that the Cambridge is the most expensive one, since it is actually build on better chips.
Last edited:
The question is, if you are looking for good specifications or good music reproduction. If you go for specifications, without doubt you must go for the op-amp!!
However... If you do want the best reproduction of mucic, you should try an good discrete non-feedback design. The scientific proff will be in your ears
If you go for the op-amp, you might as well take the cheapest commercial DAC, since they are all made almost the same way. Take a look at the Benchmark DAC 1 and Cambridge DACMagic... If you pull out the PCB and remove the price-tag, most people would believe that the Cambridge is the most expensive one, since it is actually build on better chips.
Obviously the TPA Buffalo DAC has proven to be a force in the DIY community because of its sound quality. We have yet to see if your product will meet/beat what the Buffalo has achieved. Less chest beating and get something out there for people to hear and evaluate, without your "dreaming" verbage!
Well... I know the TPA Buffalo is very popular on these DIY sites. But that does not automatically mean good sound quality.
If you read the thread, people are mainly discussing specifications. And I guess you have to realize, that quite a few people are more into specifications than sound quality. And then the will try telling you that: "Good specifications = Good sonic performance", even witout listening to the DAC
Also a nice example on people who are not that much into real sonic performance, is all the TDA1543 based DAC's you will see.
15 years ago, people complained about bad digital sound, because of CD-players using DAC's like the TDA1543. Now they found out, that the TDA1543 is so easy to use, that they can build a DAC themself based on just that. And then they suddently believe, that TDA1543 is one of the best ever made.
Get real!Well... I know the TPA Buffalo is very popular on these DIY sites. But that does not automatically mean good sound quality.
If you read the thread, people are mainly discussing specifications. And I guess you have to realize, that quite a few people are more into specifications than sound quality. And then the will try telling you that: "Good specifications = Good sonic performance", even witout listening to the DAC
Also a nice example on people who are not that much into real sonic performance, is all the TDA1543 based DAC's you will see.
15 years ago, people complained about bad digital sound, because of CD-players using DAC's like the TDA1543. Now they found out, that the TDA1543 is so easy to use, that they can build a DAC themself based on just that. And then they suddently believe, that TDA1543 is one of the best ever made.
I certainly don't pussy foot about regarding opinion if I like somethings sound or not, if I didn't like the Buffalo's I'd be the first to say that
If your dac is ever available I'll be sure to compare it against the Buffalo32s and give a very honest non biased comparison , SQ is the most important to me .
Also working with fiddly SMD is no problem for me, I work with it a lot
Well... I know the TPA Buffalo is very popular on these DIY sites. But that does not automatically mean good sound quality.
If you read the thread, people are mainly discussing specifications. And I guess you have to realize, that quite a few people are more into specifications than sound quality. And then the will try telling you that: "Good specifications = Good sonic performance", even witout listening to the DAC
Also a nice example on people who are not that much into real sonic performance, is all the TDA1543 based DAC's you will see.
15 years ago, people complained about bad digital sound, because of CD-players using DAC's like the TDA1543. Now they found out, that the TDA1543 is so easy to use, that they can build a DAC themself based on just that. And then they suddently believe, that TDA1543 is one of the best ever made.
Well I have seen and talked to many people that relate that the sonic qualities are incredible, especially when you factor in the pricing! Compared to commercial products especially. You may have the next great audio component, but let the people decide if it's all that and let your product do the talking. Blowhards usually tell me that they really are not all that, just talk a good game. If you are making an all out assault on the high-end DAC market, then you are not trying to compete with TPA's Buffalo DAC. Either way, build something that people can hear and let them be the judge. A designer often can not see the warts of their creation
I certainly don't pussy foot about regarding opinion if I like somethings sound or not, if I didn't like the Buffalo's I'd be the first to say that
If your dac is ever available I'll be sure to compare it against the Buffalo32s and give a very honest non biased comparison , SQ is the most important to me .
Also working with fiddly SMD is no problem for me, I work with it a lot
Well... Then I think you should try our DAC!
I can provide you a PCB and a BOM within a few days. Just have to finish the BOM
.And then you can do your own test.
Just be aware, that oyou must follow the BOM very strictly. You cannot change any components to similar types, since everything is tuned in. Even components!
Well I have seen and talked to many people that relate that the sonic qualities are incredible, especially when you factor in the pricing! Compared to commercial products especially. You may have the next great audio component, but let the people decide if it's all that and let your product do the talking. Blowhards usually tell me that they really are not all that, just talk a good game. If you are making an all out assault on the high-end DAC market, then you are not trying to compete with TPA's Buffalo DAC. Either way, build something that people can hear and let them be the judge. A designer often can not see the warts of their creation
I notice that you mention, that the Buffalo is good, especially at it's price. And that tell's me a lot. Not about the Buffalo, but more about your understanding of HiFi.
One of the biggest misunderstandings is, that high price and good sound comes along hand in hand. And that's not true!
Basically because almost any commercial DAC is based on the same idea. Yes, the DAC chip may be different, but they all cost around 3-15 USD these days. Using one instead of the other, will not cause prices up to $10k. The same thing goes for the analog stage... Op-amps at prices around 0.1-5 USD will not cause $10k price-tags.
The price on audio gear today is mainly a matter of how much the manufacturer believes to be able to talk you into paying. 30mm aluminum fronts are one of the things that helps in this...
A good examble is the Benchmark DAC1 and the Cambridge DACMagic. Without knowing the exact cost, my best guess is, that BOM cost on DACMagic is at least as high as on the DAC1. Still the DAC1 is approx 5 times as expensive (Here in Denmark). Why?? Storytelling and a nice chassis
About being able to see the faults in your own creation. Right you are. That's why the prototypes has spend a lot of time away from home. This way we knew that we would not step into this trap.
I notice that you mention, that the Buffalo is good, especially at it's price. And that tell's me a lot. Not about the Buffalo, but more about your understanding of HiFi.
One of the biggest misunderstandings is, that high price and good sound comes along hand in hand. And that's not true!
Basically because almost any commercial DAC is based on the same idea. Yes, the DAC chip may be different, but they all cost around 3-15 USD these days. Using one instead of the other, will not cause prices up to $10k. The same thing goes for the analog stage... Op-amps at prices around 0.1-5 USD will not cause $10k price-tags.
The price on audio gear today is mainly a matter of how much the manufacturer believes to be able to talk you into paying. 30mm aluminum fronts are one of the things that helps in this...
A good examble is the Benchmark DAC1 and the Cambridge DACMagic. Without knowing the exact cost, my best guess is, that BOM cost on DACMagic is at least as high as on the DAC1. Still the DAC1 is approx 5 times as expensive (Here in Denmark). Why?? Storytelling and a nice chassis
About being able to see the faults in your own creation. Right you are. That's why the prototypes has spend a lot of time away from home. This way we knew that we would not step into this trap.
I have sold and been involved in high-end audio since 1980. I doubt that there is anything that you could tell me about this business that I have not experienced more than once. Quality audio (i.e "superior sound quality") costs money. There are no cheap ways to make the best sound possible. There are cost effective ways to achieve greatness, but no one can do it cheaply. I have never experienced it and can not see how anyone is delusional enough to think that they can do it either.
Time will tell if you have crafted a audio component that will set the world on its ear. I personally do not believe it, as you are not using what most current standard for optimal digital sound (The ESS chip). You might make a fine DAC, but you will have to prove this with product and not simply your opinions, which are slanderous to a product that has proven its meddle in a free marketplace. Respect goes along way to earning you credit in this industry, IMO.
I actually believe, that the ESS chip may perform very well. I also know, after years of listening, that an op-amp based DAC will be limited by the performance of the op-amps. We have tried a lot of op-amps, during the R&D of our DAC. My best guess is, that we also tried the ones used in the Buffalo (I do not know which op-amp is used). And none of the op-amp ever made us very happy. It's really like taking a BMW and fit it with a pair of wheels from a wheelbarrow.
And yes I know the standard response. No, we did not try the op-amp on a ESS chip. But we did on several other chips, and the result is just the same. I see that TPA also use op-amps for the PCM1794 based DAC. We did try the PCM1794 with different op-amps. And it's just the same story.
Since TPA go for op-amps all the way, my guess is that these guys have
- Another approach to music reproduction, or.
- Have never heard a well designed discrete design, or.
- Don't spend a lot of time on tweaking the designs.
Seeing ceramic capacitors in analog filters, gives me some indication of the last of these
.I actually believe, that the ESS chip may perform very well. I also know, after years of listening, that an op-amp based DAC will be limited by the performance of the op-amps. We have tried a lot of op-amps, during the R&D of our DAC. My best guess is, that we also tried the ones used in the Buffalo (I do not know which op-amp is used). And none of the op-amp ever made us very happy. It's really like taking a BMW and fit it with a pair of wheels from a wheelbarrow.
And yes I know the standard response. No, we did not try the op-amp on a ESS chip. But we did on several other chips, and the result is just the same. I see that TPA also use op-amps for the PCM1794 based DAC. We did try the PCM1794 with different op-amps. And it's just the same story.
Since TPA go for op-amps all the way, my guess is that these guys have
- Another approach to music reproduction, or.
- Have never heard a well designed discrete design, or.
- Don't spend a lot of time on tweaking the designs.
Seeing ceramic capacitors in analog filters, gives me some indication of the last of these
How can you claim to hear all of the problems with an opamp circuits, yet fail to hear the obvious sonic advantages of the ESS chip vs other chips! Can you only hear what you want others to believe? You are losing credibility with ever post you make IMO. Making claims that your circuit is better than the Buffalo based upon the fact that a discrete circuit is better? Many people have tried to make discrete circuits that sound like crap, but measure superbly! It is the final result that matters. Not what you use to make it.
The Buffalo (I own the first incarnation) does not have a single opamp in it. It's the IVY that does, and it can be switched out to an I/V of choice, discrete, tubes or transformer.
The 'other' DAC being described here does not even exist, does it? Still in 'research'? then what is the purpose of the creator to lambast it on a thread asking a question directly aimed at people who have experience with it?
To answer the original poster, it's a very good DAC Beats pretty much anything I've ever heard, and many commercial offerings.
Plus, it's a real product, not vaporware
However, it's quite possible that there is a DAC in development that will totally trump everything that came before it, be unanimously proven the be-all and end-all of DACs, cost less than 500 USD to put together, be available as a readily assembled kit, and be supported on a stellar forum with co-operative sellers, who spend a lot of time focusing on their products and not running down others' I look forward to the day, and I'll be a customer for sure
The 'other' DAC being described here does not even exist, does it? Still in 'research'? then what is the purpose of the creator to lambast it on a thread asking a question directly aimed at people who have experience with it?
To answer the original poster, it's a very good DAC
Beats pretty much anything I've ever heard, and many commercial offerings.Plus, it's a real product, not vaporware
However, it's quite possible that there is a DAC in development that will totally trump everything that came before it, be unanimously proven the be-all and end-all of DACs, cost less than 500 USD to put together, be available as a readily assembled kit, and be supported on a stellar forum with co-operative sellers, who spend a lot of time focusing on their products and not running down others'
I look forward to the day, and I'll be a customer for sure
Last edited:
That's simply not true. A couple of years ago, KvK claimed that the good old NAD3020 amplifier would kick the *** of most new High End amplifiers. This statement was meet with the same reaction as your's. Naturally an old cheap amplifier could match new High End designs!
This ended in several auditions, where people was invited to KvK's home to do the test. You just had to bring you own amp, that you believe would beat the 3020.
I have attended these auditions many times, and seen many people with their expensive amps. If I'm not wrong, the most expensive ones have been around $10k, but KvK will give you the excact story. If I'm not right, there has not until now been even one audition where the 3020 did not win! And how to know that it's not just KvK and my opinion??? Well.... because a lot of these people bringing their "High End" amps, went straigt home and put the amp on the used marked!
A good example of the great misunderstandig about hifi and prices.
Please tell me, what you believe make a DAC expensive to build?? DAC-chips cost around 3-15 USD, op-amps 0.1-5 USD..... Please.... What is it they stuff into a DAC, that makes it cost $10k??? As an engineer, I really don't know
I seems you do not have been listening that much during R&D of DAC's. What we discovered was, that the differences between different DAC-chips isn't that big! We found the CS4398 to be the best, by a small margin. Also op-amps sounds very much like eachother.
But then... When you try an discrete analog stage, you really take a big step forward! Much bigger than changing a DAC-chip.
Actually we found, that the thing called "digital sound" as beeing a negative thing, is not related to the digital parts. It's directly related to bad analog design = Op-Amp.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.