Yeah, they aren't that much different compared to the table, although there does still appear to be something.
Maybe it's not much and the poor datasheets make it look worse than it is.
The ESS datasheets are even worse. Closer to a product brief than a real datasheet.
This is what google shows for a starting text of "PCM17":
PCM1704 - here's a thread discussing it as a NOS DAC that beats ES9018. PCM1704 NOS vs Buffalo III
Like the AD1955 it is a OS DAC (both are 8x OS) but can be configured as NOS if you read the datasheet carefully.
Last edited:
Better than ES9018? that's interesting..
BTW when searching PCM1704 on ebay,
there are 56 results, out of which only 1 is a ready made board (and it's 1702 and not 1704)..
(the rest of the results are the chip alone)
Only 1 result, and relatively expensive compared to DAC board on ebay..
PCM1702 decoding board finished sound quality comparable to PCM1704 and TDA1541 | eBay
I think you'll struggle to get a NOS 384KHz these days, and out of production chips are often faked. OPA627 is an example. DACs are almost like fashion and that is "so yesterday darling". DSD and R2R seem to be the buzz now.
And if you do find one, it'll be likely be expensive. Anagram made a 384KHZ NOS DAC - on this thread 384 Khz DAC?
and this SHARC DSPs and Digital Clock - Gearslutz Pro Audio Community
They sold it to OEM and it got put into DACs costing silly money. Anagram DAC
So if you want to try NOS, and I recommend you do, try something less exotic ....
And if you do find one, it'll be likely be expensive. Anagram made a 384KHZ NOS DAC - on this thread 384 Khz DAC?
and this SHARC DSPs and Digital Clock - Gearslutz Pro Audio Community
They sold it to OEM and it got put into DACs costing silly money. Anagram DAC
So if you want to try NOS, and I recommend you do, try something less exotic ....
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a non oversampling delta sigma DAC available though, regardless of if you can bypass the front end interpolation filter on parts like AD1955. That aside, there is no way to go from 44.1 to 384 kHz without oversampling.
The PCM1704 is one that could actually be run non-oversampling but again, not at 384...
Bricasti M1? Yours for US$10,000. Bricasti Design M1SE Dual Mono DAC Reviewed
I like to think I have the poor man's version ;-)
I differentiate between OS, done in the DAC IC, and DSP, SRC etc, done externally and thus with more "options", so i don't see them as the same. I am careful to differentiate between upsampling and oversampling to express this. It's clear you don't make such distinctions. Tomayto, tomarto, potayto, potarto? I think you see interpolation as one thing, I see different maths so different flavours.
I know the AD1955 says it can do 192KHz in external filter mode, but what if you duplicated the data stream and inverted one. Would that count as 384 for marketing purposes? ;-)
Oh yes, btw, I have a few DVD-A 96/24 as well as SACD, etc so I'm not sure why you're always referring to 44.1. I do have a lot of CDs but not just those.
I like to think I have the poor man's version ;-)
I differentiate between OS, done in the DAC IC, and DSP, SRC etc, done externally and thus with more "options", so i don't see them as the same. I am careful to differentiate between upsampling and oversampling to express this. It's clear you don't make such distinctions. Tomayto, tomarto, potayto, potarto? I think you see interpolation as one thing, I see different maths so different flavours.
I know the AD1955 says it can do 192KHz in external filter mode, but what if you duplicated the data stream and inverted one. Would that count as 384 for marketing purposes? ;-)
Oh yes, btw, I have a few DVD-A 96/24 as well as SACD, etc so I'm not sure why you're always referring to 44.1. I do have a lot of CDs but not just those.
Last edited:
Where does this 441./16 data come from?
You seem to be making an assumption that only CDs are being listened to. If I were listening to 384/24 it would be because that was the original format at the A/D stage.
At least though you can choose to have the upsampling done by a much better algorythm externally - via something like Weiss's Saracon software - and not on the fly either.
I would call it upsampling because it sounds like oversampling and so shows a relationship in the word itself. Difference being though that one upsamples to a fixed rate and the over oversamples by a fixed multiple. Sample Rate Conversion would surely cover both as a term?
EDIT: seems you might have already said this Nanoloop! I should read to the end of a thread before posting.
(upsampling) but to be a pedant: Analogue playback at 44.1 and re-digitise at 384
That way you get to encorporate the sound of your classic 44.1 dac into the sound for posperity.
Often not the case with downloads. Sorry I was being semantic, to me over sampling means more real information i.e. original sampling at more than Nyquist.
(upsampling) but to be a pedant: Analogue playback at 44.1 and re-digitise at 384
That way you get to encorporate the sound of your classic 44.1 dac into the sound for posperity.
I like your thinking but I see a flaw - aha! If you are playing 44.1 through a DAC, it must not be an OS dac or else it got OS'd before it became analogue. ;-)
I actually tried something crazy before - using a DVD-A 192/24 source, I played it through an AD1896 with Tent Labs XO to resample down to 96/24 (it was done in a modified DVD-A/SACD Pioneer machine) and made a bit perfect recording through an Audigy soundcard. I then played them both back to see if I could hear what this had done to the sound. I couldn't hear a difference. Maybe my hi-fi wasn't good enough at the time, maybe its my disco ears, maybe the recording wasn't all that, or maybe 96/24 is enough?
Last edited:
First, in the real world there is no differentiation between the magical audio term upsampling and oversampling.
Second, all implementations of either one are including a digital filter. This is the core objection of most non-oversampling zealots. If you're changing the sample rate upward you do not have a non-oversampling system, period. You've got the same low pass filter just in another location.
Third, what kind of audio ADC outputs 384 kHz? They are all delta sigma and so internally oversampling by nature at something like 256Fs.
This makes sense, because 96 is enough. Most hi res files I have checked have very little ultrasonic content, certainly not above 40 kHz.
I also think the better ASRCs are probably audibly transparent.
You would be well served to go through at least one datasheet carefully. That of the PCM1704. That way you would know it has no OS digital filter.
There is an AES preprint about the Japanese experiment:
Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Norie Kawai, Yoshitaka Fuwamoto and Hiroshi Imai, "High-frequency sound above the audible range affects brain electric activity and sound perception", Audio Engineering Society preprint 3207, presented at the 91st Convention, October 1991
Japanese gamelan players listened to a recording of Balinese gamelan music low-pass filtered at 26 kHz with or without a super tweeter that only reproduced the sounds above 26 kHz. Their brain waves were monitored with EEG equipment.
Would you accept that upsampling is a kind of oversampling and is differentiated because it allows non-integer multiples?
I don't really understand why some people become devotees to an architecture or want to insist that their paradigm is the only valid one. I got into this, much like the OP seems to be, because I wanted to listen to different DACs because I find it enjoyable. It's that simple.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.