bowtung
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2012
- Posts
- 118
- Likes
- 17
Does anyone have any impression with th900?? thanks. I can't seem to find much comments with ppl using ref 10 and th900.
Does anyone have any impression with th900?? thanks. I can't seem to find much comments with ppl using ref 10 and th900.
I believe that its superior and unsurpassed sound quality was the main reason why Kingwa used this DAC chip in his flagship products. But you can always ask him directly via email.
Kingwa may prefer the PCM1704 chip but that is a matter of personal preference. If the PCM1704 chip was 'unsurpassable' then I doubt Audio-gd would produce anything else especially in their TOTL DAC's.
I don't think this is marketing BS... but I agreed that it related to personal preference. Why those audiophile big players use this PCM1704 in their products because it comes with very natural and dynamic sound. This type of sound is mostly favored by audiophile enthusiasts.
I remember Kingwa has ever told me that the sound of Master 7 is already superior than those Sabre32 machines he has tried, in terms of clarity, dynamic etc. It is not surprised to me as he has the know-how of PCM1704 for years.
The Master-7 may have greater dynamics than the Sabre32 chipped DAC's from Audio-gd BUT the Reference7.1 and the other older PCM1704 Audio-gd DAC's did not.
This is proof to me that the PCM1704 is not inherently more dynamic than the Sabre32 chip or possibly other chips that I have not heard.
As I previously stated implementation is the key and I believe the Master-7 is the best implemented Audio-gd DAC. I am absolutely certain that Kingwa could produce a Sabre32 chipped DAC to compete with the Master-7 but as he prefers the sound of the PCM1704 it's something we may never see.
Dynamics is an area that the Sabre32 DAC's that I have heard are clearly superior to the PCM1704 DAC's I have heard, including very expensive Naim players & DAC's and the Audio-GD Ref5.32.
I also feel detail, speed, bass, PRaT, energy are also better, disregarding implementation, on the Sabre32.
Personal preference is the key as to which is the best chip. One is not inherently better than the other. For myself being a rock & metal fan there is no comparison between the DAC's I have heard.
I bet Kingwa listens to classical or anything else instead of rock or metal
I made the jump from Reference 5.32 (which I found sounded too dark and not enough dynamic for my taste) to the NFB-27 which fixes all "these issues".
But going from a 1x r-core to a TOTL (3x r-cores) might explain why the sound is so much more authoritative/dynamic, more than the difference in the DAC chips?
I'd like to read a comparison between the Ref 5.32 and the 7.32 or 10.32 that - I suppose - have a similar voicing.
Back then, I had the HE-500. Now that I'm in the 5LEs and 6s game, I might reconsider the dark sound à la Ref-5.32
32-bit ASIO. Full file buffering. 1000ms buffer length in Foobar. 4096 sample buffer in VIA ASIO (the highest). No DSPs.
After owning my Ref10.32 for almost 9 months and spending around 600 hours with my favorite records I have finally have an opportunity to test it with the HD800 cans with balanced cable last weekend. As expected they simply blew my old and trusty (new re-cabled) K702 out of water just after couple of songs.I've tested Ref's USB and Coax input with them and came to conclusion that if you want to squeeze maximum out of your Ref, then Coax input when used with quality transport (Modded HiFace 1 in my case) is the only the way to go. The sound is fuller with much noticeable "analogue" feel. It was not so obvious with K702, but with HD800 it was there without any doubts. With K812Pro just around the corner and rumors about HD800's successor unveiled with 3-4 months I will better hold back with my planned purchase of the HD800 for a while...
BTW: I usually don't stack up my gear like on the picture, but it was taken during testing USB input and my USB cable is quite short and free space is very limited.