[Kawai_man]

Tigz Studio I have the hiface and several DAC's and I just bought a cheap firewire dac, I'll try to remember to  do a comparison when it gets here, an i'll post it here

 

[jimmychan]

Quote:

It looks like you've got two nicely complementary units there which will be nice for your listening options but makes this comparison less relevant as an indicator of  Audio-GD quality as your two machines seem to have been designed with differing objectives.
 
I wonder how two neutral DACs would compete head to head' such as the Audio-GD REF7 versus the Esoteric with the same PCM1704 chips.
Anyone got an idea how to organise this? Where are all those magazine reviewers when theres a valid question to investigate.

 
The RE7 ues 8 x PCM1704, but the Esoteric uses how many PCM1704 ?
 


 

 

[Currawong]

The D-01 uses 8 as well.  It's supposed to be used with the matching transport, however.  A more valid comparison IMO would be a transport + DAC from both companies with a very high-end speaker rig.  I'd put my money on the Esoteric rig though, simply because of the insane amount of engineering put into it.

 

[IPodPJ]

I'd love to hear that showdown as well!  You never know how it would play out, because they each use different topologies.  Audio-gd has the DSP-1 module and current outputs.

 

[Nada]

The Esoteric D-1 DAC is a no compromise design for sure. It is a discrete mono channel design (two units required for stereo playback) with eight PCM1704 per unit!  
 
http://esoteric.teac.com/dacs/d-01/
 
Using it as Reference unit to compare the REF7 with would be interesting.....in my dreams.

 

[sk3383]

Just because two D/A converters share similar DAC chips and/or topology (circuit design) does not mean they will sound remotely similar. These devices are voiced by the designer. Some designers spend years fine tuning their gear to sound perfect (to their ears).
 
Audio-gd gear hits every nail on the head. Great circuit design. Quality components. Massive power supplies. And while all these facts look good on paper, this does not necessarily equal musicality in your system.
 
Althought I endorse Audio-gd gear all over the forums I am not naive to the fact that the level of engineering that goes into gear like Esoteric, Wadia, Levinson, Audiomat, etc. is on a completely different level.
 
When I hear conversations/threads regarding direct comparisns I laugh because system synergy is much more important.
 
For example:
 
Most people get into the audio game by first purchasing a pair of headphones or speakers.
 
Eventually we seek to get more performance by upgrading the components around our headphones/speakers.
 
One cannot just buy the "best" amplifier because it gets good reviews. Just because a device has a name like Esoteric does not mean it will truly "pair" with a particular set of headphones or speakers.
 
Its all about finding gear that mate well, that create a musical experience that moves you.
 
That being said, its entirely possible that a system with Audio-gd gear can sound 100 times better than a system containing gear such as Esoteric, Wadia, Krell, etc. but it all comes down to finding system coherency, trying different gear in your system, in your listening space/room and finding what works in your system.
 
I don't think anyone could go wrong with building a system around an Audio-gd DAC.
 
---------
Shawn

 

[shogo33]

I agree with SK3383, took my DAC3se & Oppo83se over to my mate's place as he was keen to have a listen in his system, Jamo 708 towers, using MingDa MC34AB in UL and Triode mode.  This combo in his environment didnt sound good at all, it was just too warm and syrupy in triode mode, but was much better in UL mode. Just to note that my mate has a lot of furnishings and carpeted floors, whilst i have floorboards in my area. Its hard to do a good comparo when the units havent burnt in properly, but shows that its all about 'synergy' and proper matching of equipment within a specific listening environment. 

 

[shogo33]

"The Esoteric D-1 DAC is a no compromise design for sure. It is a discrete mono channel design (two units required for stereo playback) with eight PCM1704 per unit!  
 
http://esoteric.teac.com/dacs/d-01/
 
Using it as Reference unit to compare the REF7 with would be interesting.....in my dreams."
 
I thought the Audio-GD dacs use the PCM1704 UK chip which is a better grade chip?  Also, isnt the 1704's rated to 24/96 max but  the esoteric goes up to 192khz?

 

[sk3383]

 
Quote:

I thought the Audio-GD dacs use the PCM1704 UK chip which is a better grade chip?  Also, isnt the 1704's rated to 24/96 max but  the esoteric goes up to 192khz?

The UK version is indeed a "better" grade. Think of the UK version as a revision. How do you know that Esoteric did not use this version in their DAC. You cannot just assume they used a the non UK version because their website did not specifically state PCM1704UK.
 
And just because the UK version has better specs does not mean it will sound better than a DAC with non UK D/A converter chips. Remember its all about implementation. A company can produce a better sounding DAC using chips of a "lower grade", we need to stop analyzing the details and look for the bigger picture.
 
I believe the Esoteric D-01 can support 192 input but will down sample, much like Audio-gd DAC's.

 

[slim.a]

Quote:

"The Esoteric D-1 DAC is a no compromise design for sure. It is a discrete mono channel design (two units required for stereo playback) with eight PCM1704 per unit!  
 
http://esoteric.teac.com/dacs/d-01/
 
Using it as Reference unit to compare the REF7 with would be interesting.....in my dreams."
 
I thought the Audio-GD dacs use the PCM1704 UK chip which is a better grade chip?  Also, isnt the 1704's rated to 24/96 max but  the esoteric goes up to 192khz?

Quote:

The UK version is indeed a "better" grade. Think of the UK version as a revision. How do you know that Esoteric did not use this version in their DAC. You cannot just assume they used a the non UK version because their website did not specifically state PCM1704UK.
 
And just because the UK version has better specs does not mean it will sound better than a DAC with non UK D/A converter chips. Remember its all about implementation. A company can produce a better sounding DAC using chips of a "lower grade", we need to stop analyzing the details and look for the bigger picture.
 
I believe the Esoteric D-01 can support 192 input but will down sample, much like Audio-gd DAC's.

The UK is indeed a better grade than the standard version. Some high end mannufacturers such as Esoteric use the UK version but do not systematically mention it. It easier to say PCM1704 instead of PCM1704UK.
 
Concerning the PCM1704 maximum input rate, it is neither 96 nor 192. It is 768KHz.
The PCM1704 needs a digital filter to work and the digital filters work at 8x oversampling. So the PCM1704 can accept 96KHz x8 oversampling which makes it 768KHz.
The DSP-1 used in the audio-gd products uses fixed upsampling rates. So in order to use the x8 oversampling feature, the maximum input rate is 96K. If the oversampling is set to 4x, we can imagine that it can accept 192K. Anyway, it is a non-issue since most audio-gd dacs use the DIR9001 receiver which limits the input to 96K.

Esoteric says in the description of the D01 the following: "There are 3 digital filters to choose from: FIR, RDOT, FIR+RDOT. The digital filter can also be turned off. The signal is converted up to 768kHz before being sent to the multi-bit D/A converter chips, BB-PCM1704s. SACD DSD signal is converted either to 88.2kHz or 176.4kHz before inputting to the digital filter."
The limitation of 192K is probably due to the digital receiver being used.
 
One can imagine that it is possible to build a DSP/digital filter which instead of oversampling at a fixed rate, can upsample everything at 768KHz. In such a case, the maximum input rate would be only limited by the digital receiver (they are new usb receivers coming up soon with 24/384 capability).
 
Concerning the sound quality, I would put my money on the D01 which uses the highest quality components avalaible (there is an intersting review here: http://www.ultraaudio.com/twbas/twbas_20050415.htm). A more intersting comparison would be a stock D01 with a modded Ref1/7 (such as the one made by Pricklely Peete).

 

[Cya|\|]

I don't want to go OT, but personally, if i had the money for esoteric products, i'd go with their latest 32 bit models. With 32 bit you can use digital volume control without quality loss. So you actually spare the 1k+ money on the audio gd pre.
I wonder when audio gd will relese dac+pre models.
maybe i'm wrong, but I believe that's the future of dacs.

 

[slim.a]

Quote:

I don't want to go OT, but personally, if i had the money for esoteric products, i'd go with their latest 32 bit models. With 32 bit you can use digital volume control without quality loss. So you actually spare the 1k+ money on the audio gd pre.
I wonder when audio gd will relese dac+pre models.
maybe i'm wrong, but I believe that's the future of dacs.

 
The 32 bit stuff is a little bit misleading. A dac chip that accepts 32 bits data doesn't necessarily mean it has 32 bits resolution. There is a difference between the digital volume being done at 32 bits (vs. 24 or 16) and a 32 bits dac chip.
 
When you are looking a digital volume control, the first factors that pop into my mind are the SNR and the dynamics. While the AK4397 used in the D05 is said to be 32 bits (by the way the $200 emu 0404 usb uses the same dac chip ... and I bought it 3 years ago), it only has a SNR of 120 db. What it means is that you can do around 24 db of digital reduction before reaching 96db which is the SNR of a CD. However, there is no free lunch. The low level linearity of the dac chips is not perfect. So by using digital volume reduction, even if you don't hit the noise floor you start hurting the low level details. The reason the D01 uses 8 dac chips per channel in a differential is probably to improve the low level linearity...
So while the digital volume control might be a better solution than a poor preamp, it is not the perfect solution as it also involves trade-offs (it sacrifices the low level resolution).
 
By the way, the fact they keep using the PCM1704 for their flagship model while they use the newer, cheaper 32bits sigma delta chips for their "entry" level models should give you an indication of why the PCM1704 are so much sought after in the ultra high end market. (Wadia, Naim... also use the PCM1704 for their top models).
 
I would also like to see audio-gd release DAC/pre models. Since their output stage is in the current domain, the losses induced by a volume control would be minimal (in comparison to the analog attenuation done in the voltage domain). In fact, Audio-gd had already done that with their entry level DAC, the FUN. I wonder why they didn't come up with such a thing for their higher end models.
 

 

[noinimod]

 
Quote:

I don't want to go OT, but personally, if i had the money for esoteric products, i'd go with their latest 32 bit models. With 32 bit you can use digital volume control without quality loss. So you actually spare the 1k+ money on the audio gd pre.
I wonder when audio gd will relese dac+pre models.
maybe i'm wrong, but I believe that's the future of dacs.

I totally agree. If they had a dac+pre model, i would have got that instead of the c39+dac9mk3 combo. That's not to say it isn't great cos it is, but a dac+pre combo would save a lot of space. The way i see it, Kingwa's philosophy might be that since his gear is really bang-for-buck, getting separates won't end up costing a lot, at least not for the people who get his stereo gear (amps, pre amps), so it doesn't make any sense to cram everything into one unit while possibly sacrificing sonic quality.
 
But space is a premium for many, and i personally know a handful of guys who wouldn't touch AG gear simply because they just can't fork out that desk space, which is really a huge shame.
 
I asked Kingwa before whether he felt he could improve further on the ref7, and how. He felt it could, but it wouldn't be easy as it would take a lot of resources ($) and research that he couldn't afford, simply because that would jack up his equipment prices a lot and AG's branding doesn't allow for that. I am still waiting for Kingwa to come up with his own usb->spdif async transport. Well, there's the ref3, but i don't need that many inputs/outputs, nor do many other people, i think.
 
slim.a: Because the FUN uses a normal potentiometer to control the volume but his full-fledged pres are all relay-based. The latter is much harder to implement. I'm sure he could stuff in an alps pot to make a pre+dac, but i guess that wouldn't be ideal.
 

 

[haloxt]

The sparrow is really small. It's the same dimensions as a 500 page paperback novel. Because it was small I thought it was certain to be below the compass in sound quality, I was very wrong .

 

[noinimod]

Quote:

The sparrow is really small. It's the same dimensions as a 500 page paperback novel. Because it was small I thought it was certain to be below the compass in sound quality, I was very wrong .

The sparrow can't be used as a stand alone dac and/or pre, so it's not a fair comparison. Not everyone listens to their music using cans exclusively man