[Telstar]

Quote:

DSP-1 filter transparency or poor jitter handling? I would say transparency - because RE-1/7 ordinary fares better and scales much, much better than ΣΔ counterparts with same USB/SPDIF transports. Of course, there is always possibility that this is not due to DSP-1 transparency but due to PCM1704 DAC chips qualities and/or my subjective SQ preferences.

I think is the dac chips. The 1704 is an exceptional DAC but requires a serious power supply and care in every part of the project. ΣΔ dacs are much more forgiving and can be easily used in cheap designs.

 

[Telstar]

Quote:

Well spotted, it is indeed the second time. Leaved me wondering if it's something  to do with the escalating price of the chips. Which they're reserving for their more expensive Dacs.

I'm afraid so. Kingwa told me that he now uses the pcm1704 only in the top of the range models (which are the ref7.1 and ref.10 which includes an headphone amp). The Ref10 is a good deal for those that dont want to try new combinations often.
Moreover, the dac19dsp is sold out, but some stock remains from distributors abroad.

 

[Telstar]

Quote:

Stacking multiple PCM1704uk DAC chips has multiple advantages in theory. Most ultra-high end DACs using the 1704 chip stack them in differential or dual differential mode.
It is possible that by going balance (such as in the Ref 10) there might be some of the same benefits as differential mode (?)

Yes, the main advantage is reduced distortion and improved S/N ratio, but the improvement at each doubling of dac chips are not linear, and therefore I consider the dac19dsp as having one of the best, if not THE best price to performance ratio of all the hundreds of DACs available new on the market in 2012 (or i should say 2011). Used market is a bit different story, as there are a few gems that employ the pcm1704 such as CDP/DACs from Krell, Primare and others that I have appreciated sonically.
 
BTW, did u compare the Metrum Octave with the DAC19dsp? I'm curious about your findings, because the Metrum was in my shortlist (actually the Quad). On paper and at the scope the audio-gd dac is much superior even with just two converters.

 

[Telstar]

 
Quote:

The thing is, the DAC19 sounds so good that the question becomes unavoidable: How much better can a PCM1704 DAC get? At some point, the theoretical advantage must fall below the threshold of audibility. In other words, we'd like to know where exactly to start blaming the other links in the chain for any noticeable sonic faults.

It can get to the point where any other component is the bottleneck.
 
Only the MSB Platinum dac III (haven't listened to the IV) compares to the best iterations based on the pcm1704 (8 chips). Guess why? Its a 24(25) bit R2R dac.
I have no idea how far from there the DAC19 stands from world-class reference level, since I have not received mine yet, and havent done any comparison by memory or more direct.
But before changing gear, you need true master-quality material (like reference recording HRx or the new albums from Linn records, or anything mastered with a DXD A/D* and not downsampled, not the DVD crap) and a capable transport. When you think you have reached audio nirvana, you will be jaw-dropped. I had to luck to listen to a 352khz track once and it was unforgettable. The last 10% sometimes is = +95%.
 
*http://www.digitalaudio.dk/page1191.aspx

 

[krumme]

I would like to debunk that myth. Its quite oposite for both power suply and clock jitter. And its one of the important reasons multibit often sounds better.
 
1 bit dac, is basicly just amplifying the power, chopping it up using the word clock. For good sound the power demands is extreme. For the analogue pins, It needs to have next to zero noise all over the spectrum. It needs to be liniar. And at the same time it needs to be fast. For that to be effective you have to have a very stiff gound plane.
 
You get that powersuply using technique like audio gd does on their class A supplys. Very seldom seen in 1 bit dacs. And for the 1bit ps to be better even the audio-gd solution a class is not the right one - its better suited for multibit as i can tell.
 
To have a good clock, with minimal low freq jitter, you need to have the xo next to the 1bit dac. Very seldom, and never for audio-gd. For good reasons, its not cd players
 
If you have an good 1bit dac, talk of the meaning of having a good transport.
 
 
Quote:

I think is the dac chips. The 1704 is an exceptional DAC but requires a serious power supply and care in every part of the project. ΣΔ dacs are much more forgiving and can be easily used in cheap designs.

 

 

[slim.a]

Quote:

Yes, the main advantage is reduced distortion and improved S/N ratio, but the improvement at each doubling of dac chips are not linear, and therefore I consider the dac19dsp as having one of the best, if not THE best price to performance ratio of all the hundreds of DACs available new on the market in 2012 (or i should say 2011). Used market is a bit different story, as there are a few gems that employ the pcm1704 such as CDP/DACs from Krell, Primare and others that I have appreciated sonically.
 
BTW, did u compare the Metrum Octave with the DAC19dsp? I'm curious about your findings, because the Metrum was in my shortlist (actually the Quad). On paper and at the scope the audio-gd dac is much superior even with just two converters.

Indeed, the dac19dsp did have a very impressive price to performance ratio. However, it is rather sensitive to external factors (power supply, support platform); so in a sense, one can consider that the bigger DACs (such as the Ref 7.1) offer better "repeatable performance" due to their heftier and bigger designs.

I would love to compare the Metrum Octave NOS DAC to the dac19dsp. If I ever decide to "upgrade", the Metrum Octave DAC will probably be the "it" DAC. It has 176.4K (sometimes 192K) support and is completely filterless. Given that I personally find myself preferring the -50db stopband setting on the DSP1, it is probable that the less filtering there is at the DAC level, the happier my ears will be. (Of course, everybody has different triggers for what sounds realistic).

 

[slim.a]

Quote:

I would like to debunk that myth. Its quite oposite for both power suply and clock jitter. And its one of the important reasons multibit often sounds better.
 
1 bit dac, is basicly just amplifying the power, chopping it up using the word clock. For good sound the power demands is extreme. For the analogue pins, It needs to have next to zero noise all over the spectrum. It needs to be liniar. And at the same time it needs to be fast. For that to be effective you have to have a very stiff gound plane.
 
You get that powersuply using technique like audio gd does on their class A supplys. Very seldom seen in 1 bit dacs. And for the 1bit ps to be better even the audio-gd solution a class is not the right one - its better suited for multibit as i can tell.
 
To have a good clock, with minimal low freq jitter, you need to have the xo next to the 1bit dac. Very seldom, and never for audio-gd. For good reasons, its not cd players
 
If you have an good 1bit dac, talk of the meaning of having a good transport.
 
 


 

Yes, from a technical point of view sigma delta DACs are more susceptible to incoming jitter due to their design architecture and to the fact that they have to work at much higher frequencies than R2R/multibit DACs have to.
 
From a listening point of view, many A-gd users of DACs based on the PCM1704uk have noticed that the sound improved considerably with better transports. While different people might have different interpretations, my personal guess is that audio-gd DACs have ultra revealing output stages that amplify any distortion upstream. It just happens that they are using R2R PCM1704uk.
 
In my personal experience, I have found that the sigma delta or 1 bit dacs are the one who benefit most from ultra low jitter transports. 2/3 years ago, I (mistakingly) thought that it was impossible to reproduce the piano correctly with a sigma delta based DAC. Now that I have the Audiophilleo Transport and that I tried the Kingrex UD384, I have to admit that I was wrong. The DAC19DSP still has my preference, but the AP2+Fun or the UD384 sound pretty good on piano recordings, especially when upsampling to their maximum input sample rate, which is 384KHz for the Kingrex UD384.
 

 

[Telstar]

uhm ok, but i think that there are more and less sensitive dac chips regarding to incoming jitter. the sabre for instance seems to have a good jitter rejection, while the pcm1704 performs only one thing: d/a conversion. Every other function must be implemented externally, that is why i think it need lots of care.
I also remember the tda1541 that needed very good xo, clean PS, etc.
So in the end every DAC is different, being it S-D or R2R.
 
The "transparency" of the dac19could be due to the DSP1?
 
Also, audio-gd output stages in pcm1704 dacs are extremely simple, and therefore transparent to show changes in the audio chain. (it is a positive thing for me).

 

[krumme]

I compared audio-gd 1bit cheap types, and dac19dsp here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/604824/dac19-vs-nfb11-vs-nfb12-with-some-philosophical-statements
 
I think the 19dsp has a wonderfull sound, and dont think 1bit should have a place among high-end sources, especially considering the cost of powersuply and low jitter implementation is at least as high for the 1bit.
Now Audio-gd can realy use the pcm1704 witht their current transmission methology, so that makes the choice even more obvious. But my point was just, 1 bit is very sensistive to the implementation, and a high-end 1bit, with perfect clock and super clean class a powersuply can sound so sweet with a fluent midrange, but the multibit just have the edge in my experience for this "flesh on them bones"

 

[petemac110]

 
Quote:

I would love to compare the Metrum Octave NOS DAC to the dac19dsp.

 
I will be doing just this in my system in a few weeks time - DAC19DSP vs Metrum
 
My friend and I will also be comparing the audio-gd digital interface (with tentlabs XO and different hex inverter) vs the newly released Empirical Audio Synchro Mesh (used as a reclocker between a Squeezebox Touch and the above-mentioned DACs).  I recently sold my own digital interface (identical to my friend's DI with the Tentlabs XO and hex inverter) and really miss it - my system is now lacking a bit of spark.  I'm really looking forward to the comparison, as the DAC19DSP has held its own against several very fancied DACs over the past few months.
 
The Synchro Mesh will be VERY interesting... it has the potential to become the defacto standard for reclockers for the Squeezebox Touch, Sonos and other similar transports. Will it deliver? Time will tell!

 

[mrAdrian]

Wait before going over the whole thread, what is the relationship between the dac19, c3.1 and 3.2?

 

[Turn&cough]

I'm anxious to see where this thread is going.
 
I've had my finger on the "Add to cart" button for the Synchro-Mesh as a bridge between my Touch and modded EE DAC but I need a bit more convincing.
 
I'm also interested by the Metrum and Audio GD Ref 5.2. While the Metrum is really talking to me the 5.2 could potentially eliminate the need for the Synchro-Mesh or a USB converter. It works out to about the same price as an Audiophilleo with Pure Power.
 
Unfortunately budget is a big factor here.

 

[petemac110]

I now have a Ref 5 (original version) and a Sychro Mesh. The Ref 5 is great but inserting the SM between the SB Touch and the DAC improves the sound noticeably. More detail, better flow, it just sounds 'right'.

A SM or an Audiophilleo 2 with the EDO app really does lift the performance of the SB Touch to the next level.

 

[vlach]

I now have a Ref 5 (original version) and a Sychro Mesh. The Ref 5 is great but inserting the SM between the SB Touch and the DAC improves the sound noticeably. More detail, better flow, it just sounds 'right'.
A SM or an Audiophilleo 2 with the EDO app really does lift the performance of the SB Touch to the next level.

So basically a SM or Audiophilio 2 does a better job of clocking than the Ref5 does internally when fed by USB?

 

[tim3320070]

Quote:

So basically a SM or Audiophilio 2 does a better job of clocking than the Ref5 does internally when fed by USB?

As would the Digital Interface which sounds too close to the Audiophilleo for the price difference (I owned both with the Ref-8). In any scenario, the improvements are small- for instance, the difference between my optical out of my soundcard is only subtly worse than the DI or Audiophilleo added in the chain.