PhonoPhi
Headphoneus Supremus
OK. I will repeat.That is a theory. Any examples to back it up?
If I made a high end DAC, the last thing I would want to do is make one with a lower fidelity than a $2 DAC. Instead, I would try to convince people that mine sounded better, even though it sounded exactly the same. I would encourage anecdotal impressions that benefitted my product, and I would publish information showing that my DAC was better than others, even if none of the things I was pointing to were audible. I would let people think that with trained discerning hearing, it *might* be audible.
Try that theory on for size.
ESS chips has filters, e.g.ES9018, ES90318 and many others, especially "high end")
Here is the brief description:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/printthread.php?t=337829
Note that there are no "off" option, so what would be "transparent"?
Can anyone tell based on their knowledge of the redbook?
AKM 409* series have filters, as well as their "trademark" velvet sound (that I personally did not like, and their factory was burned, so we can concentrate on ESS)
Even worst (IMHO), MQA "decoding" is now embedded in the newer chips, e.g. ES9219.
Where are "my theories" here?
(My theories are that the sound is further "cooked" by product developers, but let's concentrate on the facts above.)
How the DAC chips above would not be different from "$2 chips"?
1. See my examples above.1. Where did you get this? There are only a handful of DAC chip manufacturers in the world, they all make audibly transparent DAC chips and they sell billions of them. AFAIK, they also sell audibly transparent DAC chips with more programming access, for example with switchable reconstruction filters but they always provide a standard, virtually perfect filter.
2. MQA is audibly transparent.
2. Do you have any evidence that MQA is "transparent"?
What is you view on MQA technology and the reasons for its adoption?
Last edited: