[jalyst]

 
Anybody??
http://www.head-fi.org/t/542563/asus-essence-one-headphone-amp-dac-cebit-2011/135#post_7735450
 
I'm not asking folks to break their NDA's etc...
Just thoughts on if it's likely for Asus to head in this direction w/their next rev. of ST, STX, or E1.
Thanks very much to those who can spare a minute or two.
 
Cheers.

 

[leeperry]

Different chips need to work with the specific layout, not just have better specs on paper.

They would be SOIC8 and soldered if you were right. I presume that you have zero experience w/ audio opamps.
 

 

[cladisch]

So they are using stereo dacs for single channel use?
Will it make the dac perform better?

 
Just read the datasheets:
PCM1796/1795: stereo mode: 123 dB, mono mode: 126 dB
PCM1792A: stereo mode: 129 dB, mono mode: 132 dB (requiring higher voltages)

 

[kruso]

I'm using a macbook air 2010. How should I connect this external DAC to my laptop?

 

[xxhaxx]

Quote:

I'm using a macbook air 2010. How should I connect this external DAC to my laptop?

Macbook air doesn't have spdif so you need to use usb 
 

 

[kruso]

Quote:

Macbook air doesn't have spdif so you need to use usb 
 

 
I can only find windows drivers on asus homepage. Isn't mac OS supported?
 
 

 

[mikeaj]

They would be SOIC8 and soldered if you were right. I presume that you have zero experience w/ audio opamps.
 

They're socketed so they are user-serviceable, which increases the value to buyers who believe they can improve the sound by changing the ICs. Since there is the perception, they will make more profits this way through greater sales. Sometimes it's possible to improve the performance (if some other components are changed as well, maybe) but most times probably not unless you're looking for more distortions or oscillation, since the circuit was designed for the original device.

Anyway, the whole "oh I know a lot more about electronics and know better than the designers, who already measured the setup and figured out what worked best" (note: to be fair, does not apply to some designers) and "maybe the designers are cheapskates using inferior parts to shave some pennies off, even though the cheaper parts often have better performance for that application" arguments are kind of played out.

 

[leeperry]

user-serviceable

 
That's a very naive view of the matter tbh. IRL, manufacturers make a 400% markup on the audio gear they sell to their resellers(who make another 100% markup). They prefer to put cheapo sounding opamps on swappable sockets to keep the price low, and opamps OCD'ed end-users like it better this way as well....try to imagine how much this thing would cost w/ 22 audiophile opamps such as OPA827/AD797B/LT1028A/ADA4627/etc.

 

[Willakan]

Quote:

 
That's a very naive view of the matter tbh. IRL, manufacturers make a 400% markup on the audio gear they sell to their resellers(who make another 100% markup). They prefer to put cheapo sounding opamps on swappable sockets to keep the price low, and opamps OCD'ed end-users like it better this way as well....try to imagine how much this thing would cost w/ 22 audiophile opamps such as OPA827/AD797B/LT1028A/ADA4627/etc.

Going to have to respectfully disagree with you there. Various cheap and popular audio opamps (you know the ones to which I refer, your favourites!) measure astoundingly well, even the dual channel versions, far beyond the realms of audibility - even replacing them with more expensive models, assuming the circuit is fine with them (which seems unlikely considering the ridiculous substitutions people make) generally doesn't improve the measurements - the opamp simply isn't a "bottleneck" (not an ideal choice of words, but never mind).
 
All more expensive opamp "rolling" does is causes potential problems. When the best-case scenario is "bugger-all happens" it's hardly an efficient way to spend your money.
The "cost cutting building blocks" stuff is just perpetuated by various audiophile companies who want to sell you stuff. Take Burson's article on why opamps are bad. It's barely written in comprehensible English, let alone composed of plausible arguments. You can read it line by line going "unsubstantiated statement with no supporting evidence", "logical fallacy", "utter crap" and so on...
 
 

 

[Mad Max]

 
Quote:

 
... Different chips need to work with the specific layout, not just have better specs on paper...

Like you can't tweak the layout, hurrr.  The stock layout is just what barely works with those cheapo ICs.  There's always room for improvement, but they don't bother to cut costs.  Do it yourself, in other words.

 

[leeperry]

 
There's always room for improvement

All opamps sound the same anyway, it's all placebo from delusioned audiophools. 5532 ought to be enough for anybody

 

[Modo]

Quote:

Like you can't tweak the layout, hurrr.

I agree, you can, provided you have the experience, and the equipment. But that's not what I'm arguing with. The strange part is how an easy mod--just swapping one or two chips for different, equally cheap ones, supposedly wasn't done by the designers in the first place. Maybe in a DIY shop that would fly, but for a big manufacturer? Sounds highly implausible that they wouldn't test various parts.
 

 

[Willakan]

Quote:

All opamps sound the same anyway, it's all placebo from delusioned audiophools. 5532 ought to be enough for anybody

Wow, dropping to hilarious ad hominems already. And yes, it is mostly either bias from delusioned audiophools, with such exceptions as putting an opamp in that audibly complains about it and deciding oscillation is in fact musicality or something.
 
 

 

[leeperry]

Wow, dropping to hilarious ad hominems already. And yes, it is mostly either bias from delusioned audiophools, with such exceptions as putting an opamp in that audibly complains about it and deciding oscillation is in fact musicality or something.

The thing is that giving opinions with zero field experience trying to explain to stray sheeps that everything sounds the same(even though you've obviously never rolled opamps) doesn't make you look very knowledgeable. The opamps I roll do not oscillate, I always ask a RMA technician to check w/ his analog oscilloscope...and yes, 5532 can easily be superseded by newer designs. If one day you decide to try stuff IRL before giving opinions on internet boards, you'll realize that too ya know

 

[Willakan]

 
Quote:

The thing is that giving opinions with zero field experience trying to explain to stray sheeps that everything sounds the same(even though you've obviously never rolled opamps) doesn't make you look very knowledgeable. The opamps I roll do not oscillate, I always ask a RMA technician to check w/ his analog oscilloscope...and yes, 5532 can easily be superseded by newer designs. If one day you decide to try stuff IRL before giving opinions on internet boards, you'll realize that too ya know

What you are saying, as defined by current scientific thought on the subject, has no basis in reality. My "field experience" has nothing to do with your inability to separate what you heard in sighting listening tests with objective fact. Taking your ears as infallible...therein lies the route to madness.
Oscillation was given as an obvious example, but there are a lot more things to consider, many of which are not initially obvious.
 
I can dismiss your argument in the same way I can dismiss someone who claims that eating raspberry muffins improves treble response - there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it and any "differences" can be explained with existing scientific concepts. Both claims, despite the differences in ridiculousness, are dismissed by the same mechanism. I don't really need to hear that blueberry muffins don't influence sound to be pretty sure of it, do I?
 
So you have something to latch onto and have a go at "1 comprehensive measurement set is worth a thousand sighted listening tests."