[xand1x]

I'm in the market for a dac and I'm currently debating which DAC I should go for. Both use different converters Burr Brown PCM1796 vs PCM 1704. I'm just wondering if anyone has had any experience with either chip, or both, and if they would be able to comment on performance. (please specify source as well, if possible)

EDIT: 1796 NOT 1794 SORRY FOR TYPOS

 

[tkam]

Don't you mean the PCM1796

 

[Garbz]

If he wants to use the PCM1794 then let him. Newer doesn't mean better.

Either way they are very different beasts. The PCM1794 is an advanced segment DAC, similar to the PCM1730 which I'm STILL putting together. They work in similar ways to Delta Sigma DACs and it runs a single ended supply.

The far superior PCM1704 is a Sign Magnitude DAC. These are true multibit DACs unlike the Delta Sigma or Advanced Segment DACs. It also runs from a differential powersupply.
However this chip is mono and requires a digital filter before hand to split a stereo digital signal into two mono signals. The DF1704 is the logical choice. So you need 2 PCM1704s and a DF1704 and things get very expensive but in the end the price is usually reflected in the sound quality.

Only some of the very best CDplayers I've heard use the PCM1704 including ones from Naim and Shanling.

 

[Jon L]

PCM 1704 is a great DAC chip for sure, but IME one cannot tell how a DAC will sound by which DAC chip it uses AT ALL, meaning the DAC chip used doesn't influence the outcome as much as some people think. I tend to look at the power supply design, analogue output stage, and digital filter (or lack thereof) when I shop for DAC's...

 

[tkam]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garbz If he wants to use the PCM1794 then let him. Newer doesn't mean better.

I have a pretty good idea of the two dac's hes considering from chatting with him via PM and the one dac uses the 1796 not the 1794.

 

[xand1x]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkam I have a pretty good idea of the two dac's hes considering from chatting with him via PM and the one dac uses the 1796 not the 1794.

Correct. Sorry everyone, I meant to type 1796 not 1794!