[atothex]

From everything that I've heard and read, the latest Sabre DAC has all the potential in the world, even more than the PCM1704. It's supposedly much easier to design around than the 1704, as well. Whether anyone has really done the Sabre chip justice yet is debatable. I haven't really kept up and don't know what kind of uber high end products use it.

 

[regal]

This is a thread for the Ref7, not Sabre marketing (they are good enough at that on their own.)

 

[charley phogg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif The chip designers will tell you no two DAC chips with high specs like these will sound different and they are all perfectly flat within the range of human hearing. It is all in the implementation and the output stage. I'm not sure whether I believe this, but I'm not willing to rule it out either. So lead or no lead, I think that's stretching the truth of what you can hear. What other parts were replaced? You had many hours of operation on the one channel whereas the other was new. I know there are 3 different levels of this chip. There is the PCM1704, the PCM1704U and the PCM1704U-K. Supposedly the K version is made to tighter standards, but who really knows. It could all be marketing. I'm not sure what else if anything separates the chips. I wouldn't mind seeing them make a 24/192 R-2R DAC, but currently most computer based transports can't support that anyway.

This surprises me since your a proponent of cables,especially. Lead is heavier, hence denser then non-lead solder.Non-lead solder doesn't flow as well, makes it harder to work with. Non-lead solder is going to have trash, or air pockets if you will, can't thik of the term right now, but I think you get my meaning. Lead's goingto be 100% conductive,non-lead solder less so, probably much less so by thetime you figure impurities and how poorly the solder flows and adheres.

RoS is going to do to audio what mp3 did.

As far as the three different chips, they're all the same chip, just manufactered from different parts of the silicon rod they all originate from. Best,better and this'll work.

 

[johnwmclean]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well I heard the Buffalo32 at the last meet with a Beta22. You can't even compare it to the Ref1. The Ref1 beats it hands down. However it was running through USB which lacks in SQ compared to S/PDIF, but from previous experience I know what would open up in the sound had it been running via coax or optical, and in my opinion it still wouldn't come close to the SQ of the Ref1. Maybe if the ESS was running in dual mono (which can be done if someone designed a PCB for it that way) it would sound better, but there is no implementation thusfar like that.

That Sabre32 was built for direct headphone output, the output traces would not have been cut for 21Ω output impedance, you need to do this if using capacitive cables and/or an amplifier.
As you were using cables and an amplifier the Sabre32 would not have been performing it’s best, I did tests with may own DAC and found the sound much, much better at 21Ω output impedance.
...also there is lots of ways to configure the psu, which also result in better performance.

As you know there are 2 board β22’s and 4 board balanced β22’s with dual psu’s. Same goes for Sabre32 builds.

 

[IPodPJ]

Thanks for clearing that up Charley, about the 1704.

John, I'm not doubting the Buffalo32 is a capable DAC. I'm sure it is. But I also know you had your doubts about it before. For what it is I'm sure many people find it to be a terrific DAC and probably a really good bargain. I'd be completely willing to hear it again, optimized as you say.

The Ref1 is really a gem though because you cannot get what is in that DAC in a name brand for less than high 4 to low 5 figures. So comparing it to DACs that cost the same is just not a level playing field. The Ref1 will beat them every time.

Sure, if I had a spare $10K+ to blow, I'd probably opt for a name brand, dual differential 1704U-K dual-mono DAC because it would probably be built to better QC standards, have a more elegant chassis, and maybe more digital and analog filter options. But for those of us who can't yet want that same performance, the Ref1/Ref7 are no brainers. All you need to do is listen to one and you'll wonder why they are being sold so relatively cheap.

 

[Currawong]

If I won the lottery, I'd probably buy a Lavry Gold to be honest. It's a custom R2R DAC. Other than that, I'm damn happy with Amarra + Ref 3 + Ref 1.

 

[johnwmclean]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif But I also know you had your doubts about it before.

No that was a Cambridge 840c

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f5/con...beta22-433108/

I look forward to hearing a Ref1 or 7 at the first opportunity, though. Thanks PJ.

 

[fxdwg123]

Uhhhh, IPodPJ, a more elegant chassis?

Have a good look to the RE7, I think it is elegant with a nice brushed front, rounded corners, 1 simple display and aluminium feet. There are more expensive gear that doesn't look that nice!

 

[IPodPJ]

Did I say it didn't look nice? No, I did not. It looks nicer than any chassis he's made to date. I said a more elegant chassis like you would find in a $10K plus DAC where good money is spent on the chassis. Kingwa doesn't spend much money on the chassis because he concentrates on the internals, and for those of us who don't have that kind of money that's a good thing. We want the highest performance we can get for our dollar.

Anyway, my RE7 was shipped out two days ago apparently. It has mainly been rewired with Nucleotide OCC copper from Double Helix Cables. The AES wire is SCSCag from Cryoparts. The BNC and RCA coax were going to be Illuminati but Kingwa installed them and said there was a major drop in bass, so he removed them and put back his wire. Personally I don't understand how that would happen but I believe he was telling me his honest impression. At first he also said he thought the OCC copper caused a slight lessening of the bass but let it burn in for a few days and then shipped it out. I can only imagine he would have swapped out that wire too if he didn't approve before it was shipped. It has been explained to me that wire is a low pass filter for DC, so if anything it would affect the treble but certainly not the bass. Plus, he's now got 500 meters of Nucleotide that he was planning on using to wire his gear, so hopefully after awhile of listening he will concur that it is better than silver plated copper and use it. I can say from personal experience the previous headphone cable I had was silver plated copper and it doesn't even come close to comparing to the headphone cable I have now with the Nucleotide wire.

 

[Currawong]

75 Ohm wire for the digital might have been a better option. Might be worth his while to get a few feet of a bunch of different wires and try them to see if he can better what he uses and to give an upgrade option for people who want it.

 

[regal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Currawong /img/forum/go_quote.gif 75 Ohm wire for the digital might have been a better option. Might be worth his while to get a few feet of a bunch of different wires and try them to see if he can better what he uses and to give an upgrade option for people who want it.

With a few inches of wire, impedance is not a factor. AudioGD know what they're doing.

 

[jimmychan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Currawong /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Ref 7 was only made, as far as I know, because people kept bugging Kingwa about a DAC with more than just S/PDIF inputs. The Chinese market seems not to care about AES etc. I wouldn't write off the Sabre 32 just because it's not R2R. I gather it has some pretty interesting technology built in to it and is very capable.

Yes, that's right. There isn't many equipment with AES out here. I also doubt the AES is superior than SPIF except in long distance transmittion. Anyhow the AES is converted back to SPIF before entering into DSP1. It is not a real AES input implementation.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmychan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, that's right. There isn't many equipment with AES out here. I also doubt the AES is superior than SPIF except in long distance transmittion. Anyhow the AES is converted back to SPIF before entering into DSP1. It is not a real AES input implementation.

According to Kingwa, it is a real AES implementation. I asked him that same question.

 

[Currawong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmychan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, that's right. There isn't many equipment with AES out here. I also doubt the AES is superior than SPIF except in long distance transmittion. Anyhow the AES is converted back to SPIF before entering into DSP1. It is not a real AES input implementation.

AES = balanced SPDIF, so same difference regardless.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Currawong /img/forum/go_quote.gif AES = balanced SPDIF, so same difference regardless.

Basically, yes. The voltages are different too. Sometimes you can use an impedance transformer to convert one to the other, but it isn't guaranteed to work all the time. You can occasionally have drop outs in the audio.