Hence my original suggestion to go with AK4497. It is -much- easier to work
with and it sounds very good straight 'out of the box' so to speak.
The 9038 is a bit of a pig to work with. Many many other things to get right.
T
http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/250032fb.pdf
When the 2380-24 isn't good enuf.
Also, when you look at their PRO series vs their mobile series Q2M's, you wonder, "why bother?"
Of course we have proof/pudding of the RTX analyzer using the 4490, not even the 4497. In either case, we get the full datasheet without issue!
Last edited:
Crane Song is using AK parts in its Quantum DACs (gotta love the Q name), but Crane Song is a serious company that makes very high-quality gear for the recording industry: hardware
Here is where they say they use AK: Hedd_Quantum
Turns out they are also upsampling everything to 211kHz, the same place I am trying to get my Q2M DAC project up to. It just takes an ultra-low jitter 27MHz clock. The other thing is to make the DAC chip I2S master and feed it data as it needs it. Sabre jitter correction can be turned off. Sampling at 211kHz, a minimum phase, slow transition reconstruction filter can sound great even for 24/192 audio content. It really does sound good, IMHO, and SRC4392 chips are only around $15. Don't know why anyone would not want to have the (to me at least) very audible sound quality improvement.
Here is where they say they use AK: Hedd_Quantum
Turns out they are also upsampling everything to 211kHz, the same place I am trying to get my Q2M DAC project up to. It just takes an ultra-low jitter 27MHz clock. The other thing is to make the DAC chip I2S master and feed it data as it needs it. Sabre jitter correction can be turned off. Sampling at 211kHz, a minimum phase, slow transition reconstruction filter can sound great even for 24/192 audio content. It really does sound good, IMHO, and SRC4392 chips are only around $15. Don't know why anyone would not want to have the (to me at least) very audible sound quality improvement.
I would not bother with a .01ufd cap across any cap. Way to small to matter UNless there was/is an HF/RF issue.
Thx-RNMarsh
The DAC 3 is excellent. If there is better, it will cost a LOT more, I am sure. But when I said it sounds better, I get jumped on hard and kicked while down too. Then the pile-on occurs. Like I am a traitor crossing over to the dark side.
I hear/listen and I measure, both. Seems strange to some people. Seems normal thing to do IMO. But no, I dont hear a .01ufd across a 1000, either.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I wouldn't say jumped on, just the fact that you are saying it sounds clearly superior even though the output is then going through a Cirrus Logic AD/DA conversion before reaching your speakers. This makes no sense (at least to me) unless the Cirrus converters are clearly superior to the benchmark?
I am not sure what makes or does not make sense to You. My comparison was with the previous BenchMark DAC's which I had owned to compare. But it isnt just Benchmark .. it is any time I say i heard this or that rather than a rigorous juried technical treatise. Or the fall back -- where is the rigorous DBLT, unsighted....
If it helps to have more details - it was on a playback system that was prior to the one I have now. All analog.
-RNM
Last edited:
As many could tell - RE Patents --- they are also given for field of application. And, there are types of patents. It is not as simple as ONLY the circuitry itself to get a patent but also if used in a new field.
Its complicated but makes sense when you understand how patents are broken down.
Meanwhile, did you read the body of text to see what i am doing and how that results in a pure, low R only across a filter BW? This is for ac power line filtering BTW.
THx-RNMarsh
Its complicated but makes sense when you understand how patents are broken down.
Meanwhile, did you read the body of text to see what i am doing and how that results in a pure, low R only across a filter BW? This is for ac power line filtering BTW.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
The confusion is that your reproduction chain goes (at least how I remember you explaining it)
data source ->
benchmark dac ->
amps with DSP built-in for your M2's -> *
speakers
*By nature of the business, you're taking the analog signal from your DAC, and having to redigitize it to do the appropriate DSP. So the presumption is that your ADC + DSP + amp is so clean that you can hear a difference between your previous gen1 benchmark and your new benchmark DAC. Can we say (without being too unfair) that, unless your gen1 benchmark was somehow failing, this is hard to believe?
Hi Richard,
I don't think that anyone can actually hear a 0.01 uF capacitor across a 1,000 uF capacitor either. Not if they are truly honest with themselves. Now, if they are putting them across rectifier diodes, I can see that.
-Chris
I don't think that anyone can actually hear a 0.01 uF capacitor across a 1,000 uF capacitor either. Not if they are truly honest with themselves. Now, if they are putting them across rectifier diodes, I can see that.
I think you're in the majority there. I can't imagine not listening to a design (or repair)! That makes about as much sense as not measuring same.
-Chris
Ignoring for a second the fact that Benchmark say that DACs 1,2 and 3 are all transparent other than sample overs and some volume pot settings, my confusion is that the DACs in your I-tech 5000s are most likely considerably worse than the DAC3. Certainly THD for the I-tech seems to be quoted at <0.1%.
So I can't work out how you can hear differences 120dB down maybe with amps with an SNR of 112dB.
Note just commenting on through your M2s. For headphone listening I cannot comment.
Edit: DPH got in before me whilst I was reading the itech manual!
So I can't work out how you can hear differences 120dB down maybe with amps with an SNR of 112dB.
Note just commenting on through your M2s. For headphone listening I cannot comment.
Edit: DPH got in before me whilst I was reading the itech manual!
I'm scared of querying what people who regularly say "it sounds better" mean, so I will join the silent majority who don't bother......of course it would be interesting if at least an attempt to measure and understand what could be causing the audible difference were made, but I don't expect that to happen.
I'm trying to give up on that project, and simply assume it's a "new toys make me happier" phenomenon or "proud papa" syndrome. No one is applying rigor to really test whether x or y sounds better or its a null, myself included.
Music reproduction, by and large, is a hedonic pursuit, so if whatever one's doing makes them happier, be my guest.
* clearly I lapse.
Music reproduction, by and large, is a hedonic pursuit, so if whatever one's doing makes them happier, be my guest.
* clearly I lapse.
JC's amp looking nice in Black.
But I am a little confused to see all those pleb fuses in it.
Truly, you never really know what it is that sounds better in what way unless you're there to ask them and talk about it. But I'm still going to say better or worse 🙂 You have to make the call if you're designing something.
Also you have to recall a lot of the choices are going to be trade secret.
But I am a little confused to see all those pleb fuses in it.
Truly, you never really know what it is that sounds better in what way unless you're there to ask them and talk about it. But I'm still going to say better or worse 🙂 You have to make the call if you're designing something.
Also you have to recall a lot of the choices are going to be trade secret.
The more incredulous among us probably have a different opinion audio design trade secrets. I'll leave it there.
Isn't the "secret sauce" theory what keeps the High End Audio mythology alive?
This, the unscrupulous salesmen, and the rich snobbish suckers with an urge to show off.
plus the illusion that one must be a little Mozart somehow
if one behaves like the princess on the pea.
ps
I was in Salzburg and Venice last week. I think I got an overdose.
if one behaves like the princess on the pea.
ps
I was in Salzburg and Venice last week. I think I got an overdose.
Last edited:
I think you will find your answer in the second para..... I used all analog. that means no Crown w/dsp amps. I also own a pair of the new QUAD ESL to listen with.
Better = more accurate. More accurate = closer to the sound of real musical instruments played in acoustic environment. Better does Not = like euphonic colorations.
Waly -- I also use for snobs only Sennheiser HD800 and HiFiMan HE-500 with discrete HPA. I use one-to-one copy from original analog Master from Kavi and from my own Master recordings. No EQ, no compression etc. Plus the usual great recordings by others.... analog and HD digital recordings.
-RNM
Last edited:
Ah, as you already had the M2s when you got the DAC3 and your posts at the time did infer listening via them. But lower incredulity via the QUADs.
It was someone else that said it you might recall (a member of JC's posse). I don't knock patents BTW I know the system all too well, my job was to search the real technical literature for prior art. The trick is to pick a title that has little to do with the subject at hand so your classification number leads everyone astray.
The question is would you get up there with Jimmy Fallon and listen in front of everyone, blind of course.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.