What is a Wolfson audio chip and what does it do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by miceblue 

So I've been on these forums for half a year now, and I read a lot of talk of this legendary Wolfson audio chip. It's featured in the Microsoft Zune, Telecast T51, iPod Video, FiiO X3, etc.

 

What exactly does it do and why do people here recommend it over other audio chips? Is it the chip that does digital-analog conversions?

Yes it is a DAC and it's a Chinese part so its relatively cheap and has decent performance. The problem is though with is crappy program support which leads to players such as the T51 with poor UI interfaces. The platform is way to controlling as they don't want to release the coding to allow 3rd parties to improve on what they mess up on. This is what is holding back the Chinese DAP market and until they learn to make their players User friendly, it won't matter how good their players sound; people will continue to look elsewhere for convenience and user-friendly devices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miceblue 

So I've been on these forums for half a year now, and I read a lot of talk of this legendary Wolfson audio chip. It's featured in the Microsoft Zune, Teclast T51, iPod Video, FiiO X3, etc.

 

What exactly does it do and why do people here recommend it over other audio chips? Is it the chip that does digital-analog conversions?

There's nothing legendary in the Zune or iPod. Wolfson makes a lot of DAC chips, the WM8741 is their top of the line, last I checked. There's nothing particularly incredible about it though, the design of the digital input and analog output stage has more to do with the sound of a DAC than whether its using a WM8741, Analog Devices AD1955, one of the Burr Brown PCM179x chips, something by AKM, or the Sabre DAC. All of the current delta sigma DAC chips are more alike than different. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by miceblue 

"The XM6's USB-DAC stage is equipped with Texas Instruments' SRC4192 digital upconverter, feeding the legendary Wolfson Micro WM874x-series DAC (your choice of WM8740, WM8741, or WM8742), operating with 24-bit resolution at a 192kHz sampling rate. The result is absolutely unrivalled USB audio quality."   - Practical Devices Corporation.

 

Yeah, that's full of crap. There's nothing legendary about the Wolfson chips. There are maybe two DAC chips that deserve legendary status, the Philips TDA1541A/S1, and the Ultra Analog DAC 20400A. There's also nothing in that blurb about the actual *USB receiver* being used, which makes all the difference in the world in a *USB DAC*. TI upsampler, great. Wolfson DAC, whoopee. "Unrivaled USB audio quality" from what? A TAS1020? PCM2704? Tenor?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveBSC 

Yeah, that's full of crap. There's nothing legendary about the Wolfson chips. There are maybe two DAC chips that deserve legendary status, the Philips TDA1541A/S1, and the Ultra Analog DAC 20400A. There's also nothing in that blurb about the actual *USB receiver* being used, which makes all the difference in the world in a *USB DAC*. TI upsampler, great. Wolfson DAC, whoopee. "Unrivaled USB audio quality" from what? A TAS1020? PCM2704? Tenor?

 

Hey, this is Head-Fi, and we like to get all excited about small pieces of silicon that cost 5-10 dollars in volume, but make a world of difference to the 'cred' of our gear. We dont care about little things like implementation - thats a Shelbyville thing !

(PS I'm spending the weekend with a hot new chip from ESS - she's called 'Sabre' and I'm told she really knows her way around a man's central nervous system !)

Quote:

Originally Posted by estreeter 

(PS I'm spending the weekend with a hot new chip from ESS - she's called 'Sabre' and I'm told she really knows her way around a man's central nervous system !)

 

The hype machine around the Sabre is a bit unwarranted as well. It's apparently a tough chip to implement properly, and while there have been some very good results with it (EE Minimax, Anedio), many of the DACs that use it have somewhat of a dry and clinical sound. Implementation is key. I would take a well engineered DAC using a PCM1795 or AD1955 over a mediocre Sabre DAC any day of the week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveBSC 

The hype machine around the Sabre is a bit unwarranted as well. It's apparently a tough chip to implement properly, and while there have been some very good results with it (EE Minimax, Anedio), many of the DACs that use it have somewhat of a dry and clinical sound. Implementation is key. I would take a well engineered DAC using a PCM1795 or AD1955 over a mediocre Sabre DAC any day of the week.

 

Agree 100%, but try telling that to the part number groupies that exist in every dark corner of the audio universe. I've also noticed an interesting trend among professional reviewers - you can easily fill a page rehashing specs from the manufacturer and gushing on about how fantastic chip XYZ is in DAC A - all without any meaningful measurements - and another page telling everyone how great it's been to deal with the vendor. Sublime way to earn a living.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveBSC 

 There's nothing particularly incredible about it though, the design of the digital input and analog output stage has more to do with the sound of a DAC than whether its using a WM8741, Analog Devices AD1955, one of the Burr Brown PCM179x chips, something by AKM, or the Sabre DAC. All of the current delta sigma DAC chips are more alike than different. 

 

This

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveBSC 

 I would take a well engineered DAC using a PCM1795 or AD1955 over a mediocre Sabre DAC any day of the week.

 

And I'd take a well engineered R-2R of almost any persuasion over any of those sigma-delta efforts if the end result is for listening to rather than connecting to an AP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by estreeter 

Agree 100%, but try telling that to the part number groupies that exist in every dark corner of the audio universe. I've also noticed an interesting trend among professional reviewers - you can easily fill a page rehashing specs from the manufacturer and gushing on about how fantastic chip XYZ is in DAC A - all without any meaningful measurements - and another page telling everyone how great it's been to deal with the vendor. Sublime way to earn a living.

 

lol Of course you gotta take care of the hand that feeds you. These guys get free-bees usually if not money on top of that so of course they have to stretch the truth. Kinda like doctors on the Insurance companies payrolls purposely denying claims and killing people, all in the name of money guys.

I think it goes beyond that - I posted here some time ago that too many reviews lack serious criticism of the kit they are reviewing, only to be told 'Who wants to read a review of bad gear ?'. My point was that no-one would KNOW it was 'bad gear' unless someone had the guts to publish a criticism - this isnt specific to Head-Fi, and the Stereophile writers know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of a vocal fanbase.

Here's one example of a review which surprised the hell out of me, given the warm and cosy relationship Mike normally has with most vendors:

http://www.headfonia.com/no-music-audio-gd-nfb-12/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapientiam 

And I'd take a well engineered R-2R of almost any persuasion over any of those sigma-delta efforts if the end result is for listening to rather than connecting to an AP.

 

Understood. There are strong arguments for R-2R, no question. MSB is highly critical of all the delta sigmas, including the Sabre. The problem with vintage DACs using R-2R chips like the PCM63 is that they are limited by the performance of the digital receivers available in the early to mid '90s - mainly the CS8412 chip which was not a good performer.

The king of off the shelf R-2Rs is probably the PCM1704. I don't think it's necessarily unbeatable by delta sigmas, though. I've heard some REALLY good DACs and transports that use the AD1955.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveBSC 

The king of off the shelf R-2Rs is probably the PCM1704. I don't think it's necessarily unbeatable by delta sigmas, though. I've heard some REALLY good DACs and transports that use the AD1955.

At the risk of deviating somewhat from the original topic I started out my travels developing an AD1955 design partly because its used in the very highly regarded Berkeley Alpha. But I'm not going back... I figure the great reputation that DAC has is probably more to do with smart power supply design and attentive layout than of the chip used.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapientiam 

 

At the risk of deviating somewhat from the original topic I started out my travels developing an AD1955 design partly because its used in the very highly regarded Berkeley Alpha. But I'm not going back... I figure the great reputation that DAC has is probably more to do with smart power supply design and attentive layout than of the chip used.
 

 

That definitely has something to do with it, but I think a lot of the best transports and DACs also use the AD1955 for a reason, they didn't just throw darts at a board with all of the currently available chips on it. The Ultra Analog based Spectral SDR-2000 DAC is legendary among vintage R-2R DACs for its sound, and when Spectral made their follow up SDR-4000 CD player, they went with the AD1955.