Just about every DAC maker has made that claim one time or another, I'll imagine. Have two AK4396 based DAC myself, though I never find them to be more transparent than other DAC.
Hi,
There is always someone claiming DAC Chip YYY from Brand XXX is the best, most transparent, most musical and whatever else. You can find the same thing for Op-Amp Chip du jour, capacitor du jour and pretty much any other part.
Most of this is just something that you read. Like what you read in "The Sun", "The Daily Mail" or in any other tabloid in the world.
Behind the scenes, few if any have/take the time and effort to forensically analyse each and every part and apply it and
optimise it to the max. No we don't mean read the datasheet. We mean drill down to the silicon die-level.
From our experience, we can cite the AMR CD-77. This has the infamous TDA1541A.
Outside
Inside
During the golden era of multibit, many a player had the TDA1541A. Pretty much most were implemented stock. But to the very best of AMR's knowledge, instead of leaving to run on a separate clock only the CD-77 implementation of the TDA1541A synchronised the Dynamic Element Matching (DEM) circuit with the Sample Clock. The issue with a separate, non-synchronised clock is that it can create "beat-notes" with the sample frequency which degraded both static (sinewave) and dynamic (music) performance.
The AMR Digital Engine - which beats at the heart of the CD-77
Further reading: http://amr-audio.co.uk/html/faq_cd.html#ref
> How does the CD-77 implementation of the Philips TDA1541A chipset differ to other designs?
Much of the selection grades (Crowns) was from our point of view, likely down to this problem and the ration between the on-chip clock for DEM and the Audio Clock. Synchronise the Audio and DEM clock and run DEM at the right speed (too slow or too fast degrades sound quality) and all TDA1541A sound and measure like a Double-Crown chip.
Read: Optimisation above and beyond the best the slicon manufacturer intended and designed-in, by understainding the Chip at pretty much a single transistor level.
For those who have not read this before, a little side reading here:
Technical Notes (3)
Cherry-Picking the Chipset: Going to the nth degree
http://www.head-fi.org/t/711217/idsd-micro-crowd-designed-v0-16-beta-firmware-calling-iclub-members-page-135/690#post_10617050
The pictures below give you some idea of the length we go to (from the nano iDSD right through to the AMR CD-77).
1. Audiophile Level (where most audio customers discuss...no offence meant so hope none taken)
2. Datasheet Implementation Level
3. Advanced Level
4. AMR/iFi Level
So you see, one should implement everything as well as one possibly can, starting from maxxing the chipset out and choosing the parts and the rest of the components as well as you find them. Design the circuit board well so ground, impedance issues are all well addressed etc etc. ONLY then can you truly hear what this chipset or that chipset is
truly capable of.
But to just choose a chipset listening to it stock is not the way we roll.
To us, it is a bit like cramming for exams versus studying throughout the year. You know who we are.
In many ways what we do with the TDA1541 is similar to what we do with the DSD1793. We make it do things the chip manufacturer never imagined and intended and get results that seem "impossible"...a bit like Scotty in the engine room of the USS Enterprise.
It is all very nice hearing about how we do things a little differently but in the final analysis, what you hear is how "REAL" AMR/iFi components sound, not how the bass or the treble is this or that or how it measures this well or that well. We still cover these aspects well but we hope you understand and trust that we always try go a little further.
It is how much the music pulls on our heartstrings, so to speak. This what we look for at AMR/iFi.
