[First, a disclosure - I work for TI. I'm a PCM audio product definition engineer. I am completely biased. 
]
While they are based on a similar architecture, the PCM1795 and PCM1792A are different.
Looking historically, the PCM1796 and PCM1792 were based on similar designs, but the digital interpolation filter and current segment engine on the PCM1792 are larger and more complex than the 96. (hence it's 9dB better performance)
In 2009, we launched the PCM1795, which used the same analog section (current sources, voltage references etc) as the PCM1796, but with a new digital interpolation filter that could support 32bit data.
It was found that with an equal amount of averaging as a competitors device, that the analog back end in the PCM1796 could actually show analog content at levels equivalent to the 25th bit.
As a consequence, the PCM1795 was born as a potential replacement for the PCM1796.
s3tup also makes a good point, compared to the PCM1792, the PCM1795 is a lower cost product. That has been a strong part of it's success. At 123dB dynamic range, it is still considered an excellent DAC and remains a strong part of our portfolio.
(and now for the pitch... because you knew it was coming! )
The PCM5142 was based on a similar architecture to the PCM1792. Whilst it has lower performance, it integrates WAY more than the PCM179x, and throughout the many, MANY hours of listening tests at our Golden Ear customers. (if I hear another Diana Krall song, I may go nuts), many of the experienced customers compared it tonally to the PCM1792.
I stop by this forum every once in a while. If I see more on this thread, I'll comment on my next pass through
Y'all are always welcome over on TI's e2e forum too. (TI E2E Community)
Cheers
Dafydd Roche
]While they are based on a similar architecture, the PCM1795 and PCM1792A are different.
Looking historically, the PCM1796 and PCM1792 were based on similar designs, but the digital interpolation filter and current segment engine on the PCM1792 are larger and more complex than the 96. (hence it's 9dB better performance)
In 2009, we launched the PCM1795, which used the same analog section (current sources, voltage references etc) as the PCM1796, but with a new digital interpolation filter that could support 32bit data.
It was found that with an equal amount of averaging as a competitors device, that the analog back end in the PCM1796 could actually show analog content at levels equivalent to the 25th bit.
As a consequence, the PCM1795 was born as a potential replacement for the PCM1796.
s3tup also makes a good point, compared to the PCM1792, the PCM1795 is a lower cost product. That has been a strong part of it's success. At 123dB dynamic range, it is still considered an excellent DAC and remains a strong part of our portfolio.
(and now for the pitch... because you knew it was coming!
)The PCM5142 was based on a similar architecture to the PCM1792. Whilst it has lower performance, it integrates WAY more than the PCM179x, and throughout the many, MANY hours of listening tests at our Golden Ear customers. (if I hear another Diana Krall song, I may go nuts), many of the experienced customers compared it tonally to the PCM1792.
I stop by this forum every once in a while. If I see more on this thread, I'll comment on my next pass through
Y'all are always welcome over on TI's e2e forum too. (TI E2E Community)
Cheers
Dafydd Roche
Thanks!
I've heared of "i2C/SPI", "ESS90XX" and "easter eggs" before (in the same project), it was some kind of horror story to program it with "partially correct" datasheet.
So "easter eggs" and "i2C/SPI" in the same sentence are kinda spooky
Yet DSP feature is rather sweet...
Too bad the tiny DSPs a-la TAS3108 are gone Yes, quite a niche product since these simple audio tasks could be easily done in SW. Yet you have these "Lip Sync" chips still being produced...
I've heared of "i2C/SPI", "ESS90XX" and "easter eggs" before (in the same project), it was some kind of horror story to program it with "partially correct" datasheet.
So "easter eggs" and "i2C/SPI" in the same sentence are kinda spooky
Yet DSP feature is rather sweet...
Too bad the tiny DSPs a-la TAS3108 are gone
Yes, quite a niche product since these simple audio tasks could be easily done in SW. Yet you have these "Lip Sync" chips still being produced...
Last edited:
The PCM5142 does sorely need an update to the datasheet because as it stands, it and it alone, isn't enough to get the most out of the chip. Help is required.
That aside I was informed a couple of months ago that TI have a new DAC chip on the horizon with a miniDSP core and similar-ish performance to the PCM1792. The estimated date of arrival was around now, is this accurate or has it been delayed?
I do like my PCM5142s and in the systems I've put them in, they do sound very nice.
That aside I was informed a couple of months ago that TI have a new DAC chip on the horizon with a miniDSP core and similar-ish performance to the PCM1792. The estimated date of arrival was around now, is this accurate or has it been delayed?
I do like my PCM5142s and in the systems I've put them in, they do sound very nice.
[First, a disclosure - I work for TI. I'm a PCM audio product definition engineer. I am completely biased.
In 2009, we launched the PCM1795, which used the same analog section (current sources, voltage references etc) as the PCM1796, but with a new digital interpolation filter that could support 32bit data...
Cheers
Dafydd Roche
Hi,
Judging from the PCM1795 interpolation filter's stop-band rejection spec. of -98dB, versus -130dB for the PCM1792A, the PCM1795 filter coefficients have less precision despite it accepting 32-bit wide audio data. Seems a counter-productive design decision.
On a tangentially related feature design question, does the PCM1795's digital volume attenuator operate with 32-bit precision, or in other words, with a 32-bit attenuator quantization noise floor?
[First, a disclosure - I work for TI. I'm a PCM audio product definition engineer. I am completely biased.
While they are based on a similar architecture, the PCM1795 and PCM1792A are different.
Looking historically, the PCM1796 and PCM1792 were based on similar designs, but the digital interpolation filter and current segment engine on the PCM1792 are larger and more complex than the 96. (hence it's 9dB better performance)
In 2009, we launched the PCM1795, which used the same analog section (current sources, voltage references etc) as the PCM1796, but with a new digital interpolation filter that could support 32bit data.
It was found that with an equal amount of averaging as a competitors device, that the analog back end in the PCM1796 could actually show analog content at levels equivalent to the 25th bit.
As a consequence, the PCM1795 was born as a potential replacement for the PCM1796.
s3tup also makes a good point, compared to the PCM1792, the PCM1795 is a lower cost product. That has been a strong part of it's success. At 123dB dynamic range, it is still considered an excellent DAC and remains a strong part of our portfolio.
(and now for the pitch... because you knew it was coming!
The PCM5142 was based on a similar architecture to the PCM1792. Whilst it has lower performance, it integrates WAY more than the PCM179x, and throughout the many, MANY hours of listening tests at our Golden Ear customers. (if I hear another Diana Krall song, I may go nuts), many of the experienced customers compared it tonally to the PCM1792.
I stop by this forum every once in a while. If I see more on this thread, I'll comment on my next pass through
Y'all are always welcome over on TI's e2e forum too. (TI E2E Community)
Cheers
Dafydd Roche
Well Sir if you are a TI guy then I ask you one very important question that why are you reducing the quality of your product? Example NRND for PCM1704? Its only good DAC out there with signed magnitude R2R.
We want to know why do you stop such incredible products out of your product line.
Considered that you have great Sigma delta dacs but you should have one super performing product in your line.
If its possible put this statement to your managers. There are lots of people who are even ready to make it public news on blogs and forums that TI is stopping quality products like PCM1704.
If you have the ability do try to increase the standards as they are premium products.
I will tell you why.
Duelund Capacitor: 700 USD
Mundorf Mlytic / Jensen 4 pole caps: 100USD
Van Den Hul 3T cables atleast 1000 USD cable
Speakers few thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.
So when people are able to spend that much what makes Texas instruments stop such product which is sold for 60USD. Don`t you think that such equipment cannot perform without great DACs out there?
If possible tell this to your management if you can build a DAC chip costs 200USD and the Industry will pay for it.
one word Texas Instruments has great value in the market dont loose it by discontinuing great products like PCM1704.
See this link about THE REVIEWS..
Audio Converter - Audio DAC - PCM1704 - TI.com
[First, a disclosure - I work for TI. I'm a PCM audio product definition engineer. I am completely biased. ]
"audio: do you know how much audiophiles value audio quality
product: Have you ever thought what happens to the audiophiles when you discontinue great products
definition: Do you know what is audio definition?
engineer: What is the point of one calling themselves when they cannot make great products"
I am completely biased: Audiophile engineers are not biased they die for unbiased.
you people understand what quality you need to maintain?. As you said "I am completely biased" we don`t give value towards biased people...
"audio: do you know how much audiophiles value audio quality
product: Have you ever thought what happens to the audiophiles when you discontinue great products
definition: Do you know what is audio definition?
engineer: What is the point of one calling themselves when they cannot make great products"
I am completely biased: Audiophile engineers are not biased they die for unbiased.
you people understand what quality you need to maintain?. As you said "I am completely biased" we don`t give value towards biased people...
Oh wow. I didn't expect this much response!
Let me try and address one at a time
s3tup - the datasheet is being worked on. The toolchain is also undergoing some work. No commitment dates quite yet. There's a great apps note on booting on of those devices from an MSP430 launchpad. http://www.ti.com/lit/an/slaa605a/slaa605a.pdf
5th Element - regarding your super-duper 1792a... more of a research project at this point. We have some app notes at the planning stage that may address some of this in the future.
Ken - I'll need to dig deeper on volume control of the '95. it was quite a while ago.
Rhythmsandy - ahhh. the PCM1704. old friend Great device. Awesome device in fact. I completely understand, and share, the passion you feel towards it. I'm doing everything in my power to support it as long as I can. I can't say more than that at this time.
I know this may send you into a rage of frustration... but please understand, I'm not here to give a press statement... I'm here to answer a question (on the PCM1795) and to suggest an alternative for the future.
Thanks again for your continued support for TI products.
Dafydd
P.S. For the biased comment, it's an icebreaker. It's code for "I know more about my own products than my competitors... so expect recommendations to be biased - your welcome to look through it and pick out the bits you like, and ignore the rest!"
Let me try and address one at a time
s3tup - the datasheet is being worked on. The toolchain is also undergoing some work. No commitment dates quite yet. There's a great apps note on booting on of those devices from an MSP430 launchpad. http://www.ti.com/lit/an/slaa605a/slaa605a.pdf
5th Element - regarding your super-duper 1792a... more of a research project at this point. We have some app notes at the planning stage that may address some of this in the future.
Ken - I'll need to dig deeper on volume control of the '95. it was quite a while ago.
Rhythmsandy - ahhh. the PCM1704. old friend
Great device. Awesome device in fact. I completely understand, and share, the passion you feel towards it. I'm doing everything in my power to support it as long as I can. I can't say more than that at this time. I know this may send you into a rage of frustration... but please understand, I'm not here to give a press statement... I'm here to answer a question (on the PCM1795) and to suggest an alternative for the future.
Thanks again for your continued support for TI products.
Dafydd
P.S. For the biased comment, it's an icebreaker. It's code for "I know more about my own products than my competitors... so expect recommendations to be biased - your welcome to look through it and pick out the bits you like, and ignore the rest!"
ahhh. the PCM1704. old friend
If you can do a favour for us do talk regarding the PCM1704 today and tell us what they have concluded.
The reason why we are so worried about that IC is mainly because we have done alot of research on R2R ladder dac and finally found yours is only one reliable 1704 and now its being discontinued. I am ready to buy about 2000 units this years and more than 5000 next year but the sad part is its NRND.
Tell me what to do now. I make very good value proposition products where people see immense quality at great price. Infact we cut our pockets to give quality to the customer considering they will be happy and we get good value.
Please tell us any update what your management has to say about this. Atleast I can make my mind that shall I go with this one or any other Analog Digital / AKM DACs.
Any chance future chips may include automatic PCM/DSD detection and use the same pins as some competitors products do?
A DSD1793 replacement with such feature would be a killer base for low cost universal DAC, specially if it could work in hardware mode with both formats. Same could be said about PCM1792A and PCM1795 successors.
A DSD1793 replacement with such feature would be a killer base for low cost universal DAC, specially if it could work in hardware mode with both formats. Same could be said about PCM1792A and PCM1795 successors.
So buy a lot of them.
The reason 1704 got discontinued, as i guess, is no demand. Yep, that simple.
If the device was so popular, with very high demand, why kill it? Make it in bllions, grab the cash.
Let's see, DAC chip is 10% of whole device, and price of whole device is 10% of sale price. /typical for overprieced audiophile market - very same market the 1704 is aiming for/
So, if the 1704 costs $80 per chip, 160$ for 2 channels, the cost of device should be 1600$, and a retail price of 16,000$.
Now how many of 16k$ devices are being sold yearly? Huh. Thats the real-world demand.
The pcm1792A, for example, is 13$ at that very same mouser shop. 130$ unit cost and 1300$ retail price is very reasonable, right?
The reason 1704 got discontinued, as i guess, is no demand. Yep, that simple.
If the device was so popular, with very high demand, why kill it? Make it in bllions, grab the cash.
Let's see, DAC chip is 10% of whole device, and price of whole device is 10% of sale price. /typical for overprieced audiophile market - very same market the 1704 is aiming for/
So, if the 1704 costs $80 per chip, 160$ for 2 channels, the cost of device should be 1600$, and a retail price of 16,000$.
Now how many of 16k$ devices are being sold yearly? Huh. Thats the real-world demand.
The pcm1792A, for example, is 13$ at that very same mouser shop. 130$ unit cost and 1300$ retail price is very reasonable, right?
Last edited:
That equation is not right coz having 10% is just the cost of production is not an equation at all if and only if you expect the product being made in china.
Sound Cards and Digital-to-Analog Converters - Xonar Essence STX
The above card costs $200USD so according to you the price of each chip is 12$ and its price technically has to be 1200USD according to your above equation but its sold 6 times cheaper than what you mention. That too its a sound card. If somebody makes a standalone dac out of it. It will be much cheaper than it costs.
What I say is that Lets consider that you are adding 200 Dollar price for a 1500 dollar DAC and people will buy it.
Take another example.. Audio GD reference DAC
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&r...=nhH5BOTVqSyE0o-3CgFVcQ&bvm=bv.65636070,d.c2E
which uses 8 of the pcm1704 but its costs USD2000 so according to your equation it has to be sold for 64000USD but its sold for much less.
Its more quality that you can pack in the product.
If its me I would consider that if a pcm1792 dac is being made for as low as 80 USD I will add that another 250 dollars for the MRP. It will be sold in masses.
Infact we wanted to use them in our av processors and want to mass produce them using this dac for very affordable prices. Just add this price on top of the current cost of production.
Increases value in the product.
Stereo market needs best quality and better quality has got no place.
Now if you observe few companies like MSB and Total DAC started Discrete ladder dacs so the market for ladder dacs are always inclining.
Sound Cards and Digital-to-Analog Converters - Xonar Essence STX
The above card costs $200USD so according to you the price of each chip is 12$ and its price technically has to be 1200USD according to your above equation but its sold 6 times cheaper than what you mention. That too its a sound card. If somebody makes a standalone dac out of it. It will be much cheaper than it costs.
What I say is that Lets consider that you are adding 200 Dollar price for a 1500 dollar DAC and people will buy it.
Take another example.. Audio GD reference DAC
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&r...=nhH5BOTVqSyE0o-3CgFVcQ&bvm=bv.65636070,d.c2E
which uses 8 of the pcm1704 but its costs USD2000 so according to your equation it has to be sold for 64000USD but its sold for much less.
Its more quality that you can pack in the product.
If its me I would consider that if a pcm1792 dac is being made for as low as 80 USD I will add that another 250 dollars for the MRP. It will be sold in masses.
Infact we wanted to use them in our av processors and want to mass produce them using this dac for very affordable prices. Just add this price on top of the current cost of production.
Increases value in the product.
Stereo market needs best quality and better quality has got no place.
Now if you observe few companies like MSB and Total DAC started Discrete ladder dacs so the market for ladder dacs are always inclining.
TI/BB has been threatening to discontinue the 1704 for years. It's not for lack of demand, IMO, but rather that it's a much more expensive chip to make than their otherwise all bitstream dacs. It's plain to me that there is still just too much demand for the 1704 for TI to actually discontinue it, or they would have done so five or ten years ago.
What concerns me about the subject of this thread, the PCM1795, is the blatently DECEPTIVE MARKETING of it as a "32-bit dac", when in fact, just like all of the other allegedly 32-bit dacs so far in the world, it's just a not-quite-24-bit dac with a built in allegedly 32-bit digital filter. In my view, this is VERY close to outright fraud, especially in view of equipment makers relying on chipmaker's deceptive datasheets to claim to be selling dacs & players with 32-bit performance, an outright lie.
I also don't comprehend why TI/BB would base their fraudulent "32bit dac" on anything short of their best 24bit chip, e.g., PCM1792/94. Basing it on the PCM1796, barely capable of real 22bit dynamic range, absolutely convinces me that the 1795 is a purely greed-based product, designed purely to increase revenue via entirely baseless claims of it being a 32bit dac. Were TI/BB making an honest attempt at producing anything remotely resembling an actual 32bit chip, basing it on the PCM1792/94 would be the absolute minimum requirement for any hope of credibility.
In short, IMO, the PCM1795 is a shameful embarassment for TI/BB.
What concerns me about the subject of this thread, the PCM1795, is the blatently DECEPTIVE MARKETING of it as a "32-bit dac", when in fact, just like all of the other allegedly 32-bit dacs so far in the world, it's just a not-quite-24-bit dac with a built in allegedly 32-bit digital filter. In my view, this is VERY close to outright fraud, especially in view of equipment makers relying on chipmaker's deceptive datasheets to claim to be selling dacs & players with 32-bit performance, an outright lie.
I also don't comprehend why TI/BB would base their fraudulent "32bit dac" on anything short of their best 24bit chip, e.g., PCM1792/94. Basing it on the PCM1796, barely capable of real 22bit dynamic range, absolutely convinces me that the 1795 is a purely greed-based product, designed purely to increase revenue via entirely baseless claims of it being a 32bit dac. Were TI/BB making an honest attempt at producing anything remotely resembling an actual 32bit chip, basing it on the PCM1792/94 would be the absolute minimum requirement for any hope of credibility.
In short, IMO, the PCM1795 is a shameful embarassment for TI/BB.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.