[DaveBSC]

Quote:

Don't be surprise if you change your mind after actually giving the Femto DAC a serious audition. To my ears, It does not sound 'anything' like "those middling op-amps". My brother in London, England just traded in his $11,000 dCS Debussy for a Femto DAC and claims that it delivers significantly superior performance. Don't knock it till you've tried it. 

 
I wasn't claiming that the Femto DAC uses middling op-amps. I don't know what it uses. I haven't seen anything about the internals at all. All I know is that it uses the XMOS chip again, and the Sabre DAC as well. I'm sure the components have been upgraded significantly over the standard Calyx DAC, but I'd like to know a little more about what they actually did before dropping nearly $7K - especially when there's the Overdrive SE available for around the same price.

 

[project86]

Quote:

 
I wasn't claiming that the Femto DAC uses middling op-amps. I don't know what it uses. I haven't seen anything about the internals at all. All I know is that it uses the XMOS chip again, and the Sabre DAC as well. I'm sure the components have been upgraded significantly over the standard Calyx DAC, but I'd like to know a little more about what they actually did before dropping nearly $7K - especially when there's the Overdrive SE available for around the same price.

 
 
Exactly. Let's focus less on the "femto" aspect and more on all the other parts that (hopefully) make it a worthwhile flagship DAC. Surely there is more to brag about, right? I'd love to see a shot of the internals. 
 
BTW some websites are erroneously implying it uses 4 individual DAC chips per channel. I think the same confusion happened with the original Calyx DAC as well. I'm not sure if it is Calyx themselves putting out confusing info, or just the websites who report the info lacking knowledge about the ES9018 chip and its 8 channel, quad-mono configuration. I'm inclined to think the latter though. 

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

Exactly. Let's focus less on the "femto" aspect and more on all the other parts that (hopefully) make it a worthwhile flagship DAC. Surely there is more to brag about, right? I'd love to see a shot of the internals. 
 
BTW some websites are erroneously implying it uses 4 individual DAC chips per channel. I think the same confusion happened with the original Calyx DAC as well. I'm not sure if it is Calyx themselves putting out confusing info, or just the websites who report the info lacking knowledge about the ES9018 chip and its 8 channel, quad-mono configuration. I'm inclined to think the latter though. 

 
I think it's confusion left over from R2R DACs that actually would use four DAC chips per channel, combined with slightly ambiguous wording from the press materials. I have heard of one DAC that uses two individual Sabre DAC chips, but I don't remember what it was called.

 

[project86]

Your probably right.

Dual Sabre chips has been done by the Resonessence Labs Invicta (one for the Line Out, one for the headphone out). But they are not both the flagship ES9018 chip.

Initial press releases on the NuForce DAC 9 claimed dual ES9018 Sabre chips. Now it is nowhere to be found in the specs, so I bet they changed things up. If it remained true they would certainly advertise it.

 

[project86]

  If you would like to see internals, please see this[link removed]

 
Thanks for the link - I believe I do see dual ESS chips in there. 
 
That chassis looks really well done. Attention to detail, reminds me of Esoteric gear. 

 

[Elysian]

Would be really interesting to read a review of this DAC by Chris over at Computer Audiophile

 

[brat]

Quote:

This being the case, I was thrilled to learn that Dr. Seungmok Yi, the founder of Digital and Analog, made a breakthrough in jitter reduction and would soon release a DAC under the Calyx brand, with jitter so low, it has to be measured in femto seconds, which is one quadrillionth of a second.   
 
To help you get a more real world understanding of these units of measure, let me put it in another way: The difference between a picosecond and a regular second is the difference between one regular second and 31,700 years. If you think that is huge, then consider this; the difference between one femtosecond and a regular second is the difference between one regular second and 31.7 million years.
So what does a DAC with less than a pico second (500 femto seconds) of jitter, sound like?"

I think the jitter issue is highly overestimated in nowdays. We focus on jitter but it's barely audible at far bigger values than these femto seconds. I'd pay more attention on the digital and analog section of the dac than the jiitter "problem". BTW you can easily find out if these jitter-killer technologies are working by simple cable swaps. If you don't hear any sound variations when change the USB/firewire/SPDIF cable, jitter-suppression is OK.

 

[SoupRKnowva]

Quote:

 
Thanks for the link - I believe I do see dual ESS chips in there. 
 
That chassis looks really well done. Attention to detail, reminds me of Esoteric gear. 

 
looks that way to me as well, finally a commercial dac that uses dual mono ESS 9018s...i cant wait to here it at ChiUniFi 6 this coming weekend!

 

[brat]

I prefer to see it measured like Weiss DAC202 in Stereophile than to listen

 

[MIREKFR]

CALYX FEMTO  OR  M2 TECH VANGHAN????

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

CALYX FEMTO  OR  M2 TECH VANGHAN????

 
M2Tech doesn't have a great track record. Hiface, EVO, Young are not exactly world beaters. I don't know why the Vaughan costs as much as it does, but the ~$6K market is incredibly fierce right now, and I don't see it beating the best.

 

[brat]

hiface and evo are not even dacs but usb-to-spdif converters (after extensive listening periods in my home systems I don't like neither of them).
We cannot blame "newbies" like M2Tech or any manufacturer for the high prices. We are the ones to blame for the ridiculous prices on the high-end market. In nowdays a dac under $3000 or headphones under $1000 are considered to be mid-fi and not worthy to be taken seriously.

 

[Elysian]

Actually, the computer/digital audio community has been saying that D/As have reached a pretty fantastic performance/price point for the user.  Reviewers have been saying the same lately, from 6moons to Computer Audiophile.  I can think of more than a few editor's choice D/As that are in the new $1-2k range that have been released recently.  I recently heard a W4S2 and it was a great performer, especially for the price.

 

[sridhar3]

Quote:

Actually, the computer/digital audio community has been saying that D/As have reached a pretty fantastic performance/price point for the user.  Reviewers have been saying the same lately, from 6moons to Computer Audiophile.  I can think of more than a few editor's choice D/As that are in the new $1-2k range that have been released recently.  I recently heard a W4S2 and it was a great performer, especially for the price.

 
I agree completely.  The Benchmark DAC1 and the Lavry DA11 are also phenomenal at their respective prices.

 

[RedBull]

Quote:

I think the jitter issue is highly overestimated in nowdays. We focus on jitter but it's barely audible at far bigger values than these femto seconds. I'd pay more attention on the digital and analog section of the dac than the jiitter "problem". BTW you can easily find out if these jitter-killer technologies are working by simple cable swaps. If you don't hear any sound variations when change the USB/firewire/SPDIF cable, jitter-suppression is OK.

 
I understand that, that is why I get Ref. 7.1, which is not very fantastic in jitter measurement on paper, instead of any other super low jitter offering on the market.
 
I listen to Calyx 24/192 in the store in a proper listening room, compared to Burson DAC for A/B comparison. 
I thought I easily prefer the Calyx, albeit the price difference and relatively Calyx 'empty' components inside the casing.
 
Calyx has a better decay and timbre overall.  Piano sounds like real with Calyx while it sounds a bit like electronic keyboard with the Burson. <= that is the impression from both of us, not only myself.
 
Both are fed by cd player through Coax.  I can't remember the cd player name though, but the same cdp feeding both DAC, so I think we can ignore this part.
 
Looking at the internal 24/192 picture, initially I thought this Calyx is an overpriced joke, but hearing in person change my opinion about this company and the product they made.
 
Now I wonder how the the same company DAC with weight heavier than my Ref 7.1 would sound compared to mine.