[slim.a]

Quote:

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
 

Since this site is named "head-fi", we can safely assume that it is mainly targeted for the headphone users crowd

 
More seriously, it is possible to use a 1/4" to RCA adapter in order to connect the Sparrow to a speaker system. You can find the picture of the adaptor at the bottom of the page here: http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/Headphoneamp/Sparrow/SparrowEN.htm

 

[noinimod]

Quote:

Since this site is named "head-fi", we can safely assume that it is mainly targeted for the headphone users crowd

 
More seriously, it is possible to use a 1/4" to RCA adapter in order to connect the Sparrow to a speaker system. You can find the picture of the adaptor at the bottom of the page here: http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/Headphoneamp/Sparrow/SparrowEN.htm

Yea, only that this is the Dedicated Source Components section, not the dedicated Headphones section.
 
Of course you could. Whether or not that would be ideal, is another thing altogether

 

 

[haloxt]

I've used sparrow headphone out as line out for speakers. I think Kingwa said preamp out may potentially sound better than dac out since it goes through ACSS gain modules when you use preamp out as line out. Not sure how that works, haven't tried to test it myself either.

 

[Cya|\|]

Quote:

 
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.
 

 
I see, indeed it's hard to get to the top highend. By the way, are you sure the d01 is their top model and not one of the "many" models?
Also, a review i red says the emu 0404 has the 24bit ak4396.
Sure top highend dacs with dacs like the pcm1704 have an upper hand when you talk about dacs. But you also have to consider that even if you buy a top end preamp, the sound has to pass through tens and tens or capacitators, resistors, and inductances. While the dac/preamp combo may have a lower quality dac, maybe all together it can compare with a separate system, but with half the price.
To stay in topic, i wonder how hard it would be to implement such a dac for audio gd. As someone recently posted, he would need lots of resources to design a better dac, but maybe he was referring to a classic only dac.
I just hope for the best ^^.
 

 

[Nada]

 
Quote:

 By the way, are you sure the d01 is their top model and not one of the "many" models?

Fair question. So why didn't you look it up? Google says go to : http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/esoteric12/fives.html but to save you doing any research just read below:
 
"Esoteric's naming convention uses low numbers for their top gear, increasing numbers as one descends in the catalog. Hence the unchallenged P01 and mono D01 DACs still sit at the top and fall in the category where decency demands that prices remain unmentioned. Those are closely followed by the P03 and dual-mono D03 DAC ($14,000 each), now followed by the more affordable P05 and dual-mono D05 ($7500 each)." Frederic Beudot; Six Moons: March 2008
 
That suggests to me that when considered with the flagship DAC's of other companies, that the PCM1704UK is a great DA chipset for an elite DAC to be designed around. It also makes me think Kingwa is very smart. Ive heard one of his DAC's go up against designs from three other companies, all more expensive and for me inferior.

 

[slim.a]

Quote:

 
I see, indeed it's hard to get to the top highend. By the way, are you sure the d01 is their top model and not one of the "many" models?
Also, a review i red says the emu 0404 has the 24bit ak4396.
Sure top highend dacs with dacs like the pcm1704 have an upper hand when you talk about dacs. But you also have to consider that even if you buy a top end preamp, the sound has to pass through tens and tens or capacitators, resistors, and inductances. While the dac/preamp combo may have a lower quality dac, maybe all together it can compare with a separate system, but with half the price.
To stay in topic, i wonder how hard it would be to implement such a dac for audio gd. As someone recently posted, he would need lots of resources to design a better dac, but maybe he was referring to a classic only dac.
I just hope for the best ^^.
 

Nada saved me the trouble explaining the Esoteric line up numbering. Yes the D01 is the top of the line in DACs and uses PCM1704. Also, their top of the line CD player (the $16,000 Esoteric X-01 D2) uses PCM1704 for the CDs and AD1955 for DSD signal.
 
As for the emu 0404 usb, you are right it uses the AK4396. Both the AK4396 used in the emu and the AK4397 used in the Esoteric have 120db SNR (in a best case scenario) which means around 20bit of resolution. This means that for every 6db of digital volume reduction, you loose 1bit (regardless if the digital volume control is done at 24, 32 or 64 bits).
 
Of course that if you use the PCM1704 and follow it by a crappy output stage and preamp, you will loose all the benefit. However, what is certain is that it is very very difficult to make a sigma delta dac chip sound as natural and realistic as the multibit dac chips such as the PCM1704. Here are for example some high frequency sine waves of sigma delta chips. You will see that the sigma delta chips look as bad as they sound
Also, the more transparent your gear, the more you will hear the true nature of the dac chip. The "top end" preamps have either short circuit paths or very high quality components. If a preamp uses "tens and tens or capacitators, resistors, and inductances" that are not transparent enough, it doesn't qualify as being a "high end" preamp in my book, regardless of the price.
 
As for saying that an integrated sigma delta dac/preamp can beat a good PCM1704 followed by a preamp, I have to disagree. If the sub-par sigma delta dac messes with the timber and tone of instruments at the source, there is hardly anything to do to improve the sound. You can either heavily filtrate/or use tubes to make it sound "musical", or you can leave it relatively "unfiltered" and you end up with a cold sounding DAC. Personally, I have yet to listen to a DAC or CD player based on a sigma delta chip (at a moderate price) that are both musical and detailed. The $14,000 Esoteric D03 might do that but I have never listened to it.

I think that Kingwa did a good thing by basing most of his DACs on the PCM1704uk chips. While they cost more than the sigma delta chips, it is easier to make good sounding DACs from them than it is from the more common chips. I just wish that he comes up at some point with a PCM1704uk upgrade module for the entry level FUN so that more people can compare the "old" mutlibit chips vs. the newer sigma delta ones.

 

[leeperry]

Luckily, not everyone listens to DAC chips w/ an oscilloscope...that mother-of-tone link is pure fallacy IMHO, the guy doesn't even say what DAC he "measured"(read "drew") and in what conditions....maybe one of those crappy Philips TDA154x for what we know? The same way some manufacturers like to give A-weighted specs to artifically boost figures.
 
What AKM had to say about AK4396(which is old now, it's been superseded by newer/better designs):

 Richard Kulavik of AKM Semiconductors explained it this way : "This DAC is a large departure from other delta-sigma DACs designed by us and others like BurrBrown, Analog Devices and Cirrus Logic. The AK4396 is an entirely new modulator, pioneered and patented by AKM. It achieves something unique. In the past, many of the old Phillips and BurrBrown parts were R-2R* based products. These older products were looked upon as some of the best. One of the reasons was high frequency noise. In older R-2R parts, HF noise was not present. In all delta-sigma parts prior to the AK4396, everyone has fought HF noise caused from the delta-sigma modulator with the insertion of large filters and other parts to attempt to solve a problem created by the delta-sigma design. The AK4396 today effectively does not suffer any modulator-induced HF noise and is over 60dB better than the nearest Cirrus and BB devices. All of this HF noise can cause many audible artifacts downstream. That is the 'miracle' we believe is making the difference today. This part gives you the performance and linearity of a delta-sigma device with the noise performance of an R-2R part, something that was never previously available."

 
I'm all for vintage headphones and speakers, possibly amps too...but it's hard to beat the Japanese at IC's...and AKM don't have their chips often called "miracle DAC" only due to hearsay. I'm not saying that the AKM flagship chips will sound "better" than some old BB parts, but they certainly won't measure worse. We're not in the 80's anymore, and I understand that those chips have a "feel-good" feeling to them...like those obsolete overpriced anamorphic projector lenses 

 

[slim.a]

Quote:

Luckily, not everyone listens to DAC chips w/ an oscilloscope...that mother-of-tone link is pure fallacy IMHO, the guy doesn't even say what DAC he "measured"....maybe one of those crappy Philips TDA154x for what we know. The same way some manufacturers like to give A-weighted specs to artifically boost figures.
 
What AKM had to say about AK4396(which is old now, it's been superseded by newer/better designs):

leeperry,
 
I am not basing my comment on a single sine wave, nor do I listen with an oscilloscope.

People who have actually listened to a well implemented PCM1704 dac will tell you that they are the best sounding DAC chips period. I have listened to the AK4396 and I can tell you that it is no match for the PCM1704. I knew about the link you are giving and that the AK4396 were called the "miracle DAC". It is true that they were an improvement over traditional sigma delta chips but the rest is just blabla and marketing BS. Maybe, if you understood the difference between a sigma delta dac such the AK4396 and a sign magnitude ladder dac such as the PCM1704, you would be doing the same comments. Since you didn't seem to have fully understood that, here is a link with pictures of how dac work (see here: http://www.msbtech.com/products/How_DACs_Work.php?Page=dac4).
 
The reason why chip makers moved from the multibit chips to the sigma delta ones was simply to reduce costs. They realized too late that the quality of the sigma delta chips was far worse than the multibit stuff. So there is a reason most $10,000+ DACs use either the PCM1704 multibit dac chips or proprietary multibit dac chips (such as MSB, Lavry...).
 
If you didn't listen to a good PCM1704 based dac and cannot grasp the difference between sigma delta and multibit technoloy, your comments are worthless in this particular subject. Don't be fooled by marketing claims. The analogy you made with lenses is innacurate and just show you don't understand the subject.

 

[.Sup]

Quote:

They burn it in for 100 hours. (just over 4 days)

Mine needed 200 hours of burn in.

 

[leeperry]

leeperry,
 
I am not basing my comment on a single sine wave, nor do I listen with an oscilloscope.

People who have actually listened to a well implemented PCM1704 dac will tell you that they are the best sounding DAC chips period. I have listened to the AK4396 and I can tell you that it is no match for the PCM1704. I knew about the link you are giving and that the AK4396 were called the "miracle DAC". It is true that they were an improvement over traditional sigma delta chips but the rest is just blabla and marketing BS. Maybe, if you understood the difference between a sigma delta dac such the AK4396 and a sign magnitude ladder dac such as the PCM1704, you would be doing the same comments. Since you didn't seem to have fully understood that, here is a link with pictures of how dac work (see here: http://www.msbtech.com/products/How_DACs_Work.php?Page=dac4).
 
The reason why chip makers moved from the multibit chips to the sigma delta ones was simply to reduce costs. They realized too late that the quality of the sigma delta chips was far worse than the multibit stuff. So there is a reason most $10,000+ DACs use either the PCM1704 multibit dac chips or proprietary multibit dac chips (such as MSB, Lavry...).
 
If you didn't listen to a good PCM1704 based dac and cannot grasp the difference between sigma delta and multibit technoloy, your comments are worthless in this particular subject. Don't be fooled by marketing claims. The analogy you made with lenses is innacurate and just show you don't understand the subject.

 
Ah my dear Slimane, your patronizing tone is always so recomforting...you talking about "blabla and marketing BS" is a true Kodak instant to me, it reminds me of your "analog sounding" digital cables "analogy"(pun intended). I think it's better we keep ignoring each other because discussing this sort of things w/ A-GD fanboys in their own thread...is just utterly pointless by essence 

 
Soon you'll be telling me that discrete designs/opamps sound better than IC's, which just isn't true: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f6/audio-gd-discrete-op-amps-reviewed-OPA-earth-OPA-moon-OPA-sun-v-2-a-397691/
 
Nothing like making your audio signal getting through zillions of transistors, caps and resistors to raise the distortion rates...duh! the best audio path is the shortest, sorry for the breaking news. I know a guy who's using *one* single transistor in his amp, and it sounds great too

 
I never said that those AKM chips sounded better than those old BB parts, I only said that the link you base your own "blabla and marketing BS"(you said: "You will see that the sigma delta chips look as bad as they sound" ) on is pure nonsense because:
-ppl don't listen to DAC's w/ an oscilloscope
-their output stage is almost always transformer coupled, coloring the sound far more than the *audible* difference between DAC chips
-the guy doesn't say what DAC he measured and in what conditions...I'm sure he just drew them in mspaint.
 
This is a very slim(

) technical "proof" to back up your golden earing findings I'm afraid...better luck next time

 

[slim.a]

Quote:

 
Ah my dear Slimane, your patronizing tone is always so recomforting...you talking about "blabla and marketing BS" is a true Kodak instant to me, it reminds me of your "analog sounding" digital cables "analogy"(pun intended). I think it's better we keep ignoring each other because discussing this sort of things w/ A-GD fanboys in their own thread...is just utterly pointless by essence 

 
Soon you'll tell me that discrete opamps sound better than IC's, which just isn't true: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f6/audio-gd-discrete-op-amps-reviewed-OPA-earth-OPA-moon-OPA-sun-v-2-a-397691/
 
Nothing like making your audio signal getting through zillions of transistors, caps and resistors to raise the distortion rates...duh! the best audio path is the shortest, sorry for the breaking news. 
 
I never said that those AKM chips sounded better than those old BB parts, I only said that the link you base your own "blabla and marketing BS" on is pure nonsense because:
-ppl don't listen to DAC's w/ an oscilloscope
-their output stage is always transformer coupled, coloring the sound
-the guy doesn't say what DAC he measured and in what conditions...I'm sure he just drew them in mspaint.
 
This is a very slim(

) technical explanation to back up your golden earing findings I'm afraid...better luck next time

 
Ah my dear Slimane, your patronizing tone is always so recomforting...you talking about "blabla and marketing BS" is a true Kodak instant to me, it reminds me of your "analog sounding" digital cables "analogy"(pun intended). I think it's better we keep ignoring each other because discussing this sort of things w/ A-GD fanboys in their own thread...is just utterly pointless by essence 

 
First, we don't know each other and my name is not slimane. So please use slim.a to address me.
 
Second, you seem to base your truth on superficial knowledge. Because AKM said it was as good as R2R, you believed them without doing further research.
Because a head-fier posted that IC sound better than discrete opamps, you give us the link as if it were the absolute truth? You seem to confuse people's impressions with facts.
Personally, I don't say that all discrete opamps sound better than all ICs or the other way around. I am using LME49720HA (metal can version) on the FUN and AD797 on the RCA inputs of the C2. Personally, I feel that the best opamp is no opamp They are all colored and the best opamp will depend on the parameters of the circuit on which it is being used.
 
 
"Nothing like making your audio signal getting through zillions of transistors, caps and resistors to raise the distortion rates...duh! the best audio path is the shortest, sorry for the breaking news."
 
Once again, you demonstrate that you speak without having the slightest idea about what you are talking about. The IC opamp are not a single component but rather a bunch of them in a miniature package (I am using simplified words so that you can understand).
 
 
I never said that those AKM chips sounded better than those old BB parts, I only said that the link you base your own "blabla and marketing BS" on is pure nonsense because:
-ppl don't listen to DAC's w/ an oscilloscope
 
You don't seem to have any listening experience with PCM1704 based DACs, yet you are implying that the differences can only be hear by oscilloscopes. It is the other way around. Because people found the R2R chips vastly superior to sigma delta ones, they looked for an explanation and for the right measurement. Simple tools like RMAA are worthless and tell you nothing about the sound quality of a component. A simplistic tool such as RMAA only measures a fraction of the frequency domain performance, and tells you nothing about the time domain performance.
 
-their output stage is always transformer coupled, coloring the sound
Where did you hear that? There are different output stages... and it is too long to list here.
 
-the guy doesn't say what DAC he measured and in what conditions...I'm sure he just drew them in mspaint.
This is just speculation. If you have proof of that, let us know. For someone who doesn't understand the concept, you seem to make a lot of unverified claims and accusations. If you had the technical knowledge of someone like Dan Lavry, I would understand ...
 
This is a very slim(

) technical explanation to back up your golden earing findings I'm afraid...better luck next time

 
Most of what you said is wrong. If you have real information (and not what you read on a thread and thought it was true) please free to enlighten us.
Your personal attacks just show that you are out of arguments.

 

[Cya|\|]

Quote:

Nada saved me the trouble explaining the Esoteric line up numbering. Yes the D01 is the top of the line in DACs and uses PCM1704. Also, their top of the line CD player (the $16,000 Esoteric X-01 D2) uses PCM1704 for the CDs and AD1955 for DSD signal.
 
As for the emu 0404 usb, you are right it uses the AK4396. Both the AK4396 used in the emu and the AK4397 used in the Esoteric have 120db SNR (in a best case scenario) which means around 20bit of resolution. This means that for every 6db of digital volume reduction, you loose 1bit (regardless if the digital volume control is done at 24, 32 or 64 bits).
 
Of course that if you use the PCM1704 and follow it by a crappy output stage and preamp, you will loose all the benefit. However, what is certain is that it is very very difficult to make a sigma delta dac chip sound as natural and realistic as the multibit dac chips such as the PCM1704. Here are for example some high frequency sine waves of sigma delta chips. You will see that the sigma delta chips look as bad as they sound
Also, the more transparent your gear, the more you will hear the true nature of the dac chip. The "top end" preamps have either short circuit paths or very high quality components. If a preamp uses "tens and tens or capacitators, resistors, and inductances" that are not transparent enough, it doesn't qualify as being a "high end" preamp in my book, regardless of the price.
 
As for saying that an integrated sigma delta dac/preamp can beat a good PCM1704 followed by a preamp, I have to disagree. If the sub-par sigma delta dac messes with the timber and tone of instruments at the source, there is hardly anything to do to improve the sound. You can either heavily filtrate/or use tubes to make it sound "musical", or you can leave it relatively "unfiltered" and you end up with a cold sounding DAC. Personally, I have yet to listen to a DAC or CD player based on a sigma delta chip (at a moderate price) that are both musical and detailed. The $14,000 Esoteric D03 might do that but I have never listened to it.

I think that Kingwa did a good thing by basing most of his DACs on the PCM1704uk chips. While they cost more than the sigma delta chips, it is easier to make good sounding DACs from them than it is from the more common chips. I just wish that he comes up at some point with a PCM1704uk upgrade module for the entry level FUN so that more people can compare the "old" mutlibit chips vs. the newer sigma delta ones.

I feel really curious to try a pcm1704 based dac. Right now i just  have a sound card with the ak4396, and in hifi shows, since i don't know how each component sounds, i tend to ear to the final result of the whole system (wich in my opinion depends 80% on the speakers and the room). So i cannot really comment on a comparison basing on what i've heard.
 
By the way, about esoteric vs. audio gd, the sentence of the review: "D01 DACs still sit at the top and fall in the category where decency demands that prices remain unmentioned." makes vote for the audio gd. In the audio gd sparrow thread, one who has both the sparrow and pcm1704 audio gd dac, honestly said that the sparrow wasn't much worse than the pcm1704 based one. It was more about subtle details. If the difference wasn't objectively so big between so different dacs, i think the sound difference would be much smaller between the esoteric and audio gd ref7. But i believe that esoteric price is robbery (sorry for the rant).
 
About highend preamp, no matter how highend one is, it's still based on the laws of physics, and highendi is under those rules, no matter how highend produces make us believe the contrary with high price marketing (the higher the price, the more we think it came from another dimension..."ESOTEEERIIIIIIC"....).
Now i don't want to make a final statement. I repeat, i could not test such equipments. But i'd really like to read about a comparison between a classic highend system (dac+pre+power amp) vs. an all integrated one (nad m2 and tact also include the amp in the digital domain). I cannot say wich one is better. But i can only say that i won't be fooled by the high price. I'm just eager to read about a comparison, and to find many more producers who integrate preamp (and even power amp) in the digital domain.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Luckily, not everyone listens to DAC chips w/ an oscilloscope...that mother-of-tone link is pure fallacy IMHO, the guy doesn't even say what DAC he "measured"(read "drew") and in what conditions....maybe one of those crappy Philips TDA154x for what we know? The same way some manufacturers like to give A-weighted specs to artifically boost figures.
 
What AKM had to say about AK4396(which is old now, it's been superseded by newer/better designs):

It is a great chip with lots of potential, and in fact one of the only Delta-Sigma ones that I would consider to be at the top of the heap.  The Transporter already sounds great, and the ESI Juli@ analog outputs are good for a soundcard.  If the Transporter used 8 chips in a dual-differential configuration instead of the 2 it uses in standard balanced configuration, look out!  Logitech also claims you can use the digital volume control and attenuate by -32dB and still maintain a bit perfect signal.  I'm not sure how that's possible, unless by using two of the AK4396 they can increase the SNR significantly.
 
Has anyone designed a dual differential DAC with the AK4396?  The D-05 uses the AK4397 but I think it only uses two.

 

[3X0]

Everything that is overrated is overrated for a good reason.

 

[Landis]

Quote:

Everything that is overrated is overrated for a good reason.

Technically speaking it's all a matter of preference... One man's favorite DAC could be another's least.