Sabre Dac : MSB underestimate this chip ... Are they right?

[leeperry]

 

Are you intentionally trying to blow this thread up?

 
Saying that R2R is better than D_S is like saying that vinyl is better than CD...as Jean-Michel Jarre recently said. I'm not implying anything else.
 
As been said earlier: "The additional bits lead to a reduction of quantization error". But still the price tag on the top Sabre DAC's is rather ridiculous, they'd better sound as good as they say...and apparently, they do.

 

[ciphercomplete]

^^^I'm just teasing.

 

[runswithaliens]

As an unaffiliated spectator to this discussion who happens to be looking for a new DAC, I would say at this point based on the evidence presented in this thread that the likelihood my new sub-one-thousand-dollar DAC will contain a Sabre32 chip is clearly in the lead at say 60%. A 20% chance to it being a PCM9704 based DAC (Audio-GD DAC-19) and 20% to it being something completely different (or just sticking with the E-MU 0404usb's DAC that I currently am using). Up until reading this thread, and in particular the link to the information by Thorsten I was sitting at about 80% in favor of the PCM9704....
 
Any more evidence to be presented?

 

[ninjikiran]

Oh yea, I can see your point about being butter smooth.  Though CR can be as high as 1300:1 on a PVA panel and ~ 1000:1 on an IPS panel but they are expensive. 
 
I have a DLP as well, when I got my DLP no LCD based screen could match it.  My only problem with DLP was viewing angle and physical overscan.(Rear Projection)
 
Quote:

 

I'm a Reclock user, I watch my movies in 24.00/25.00/29.97Hz multiples as I want them butter smooth. most LCD's cannot do that. And their native CR is just horrid(600:1 at best?), together w/ their anti-glare layer that blurs the PQ. I don't care for wide screen, I've got a DLP pj to watch movies on a big screen...LCD is just a worthless technology IMO. It's got a low power comsumption, so it's perfect for office use.
 
But there's no question that the latest D_S DAC chips supersede their obsolete R2R counterparts on all accounts. The best clue the R2R believers can provide is this link, which is as vague as can get and is based on pictures made up in mspaint for what we know. At the very bottom of the page, there's the phone number to a R2R DAC seller too

 
It's like the urban myth that vinyl sounds better than CD, yeah right.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

As an unaffiliated spectator to this discussion who happens to be looking for a new DAC, I would say at this point based on the evidence presented in this thread that the likelihood my new sub-one-thousand-dollar DAC will contain a Sabre32 chip is clearly in the lead at say 60%. A 20% chance to it being a PCM9704 based DAC (Audio-GD DAC-19) and 20% to it being something completely different (or just sticking with the E-MU 0404usb's DAC that I currently am using). Up until reading this thread, and in particular the link to the information by Thorsten I was sitting at about 80% in favor of the PCM9704....
 
Any more evidence to be presented?

It's called the PCM1704, not the 9704.  As far as which is better, you'll have to use your own ears to judge since there are practically no reviews of the Audio-gd Sabre DACs yet.

 

[borrego]

Coke is meant to serve with Hamburger, Wine is meant to serve with Steak.
 
We can argue endlessly on the technical architecture, different implementations of the delta-sigma and R2R dacs. But it is HISTORY, the fundamental fact that dictate their differences.
 
One must understand that chip manufacturers applies similar topologies to both their ADC and DAC chips, and most popular mastering technique in the same era.
 
The historical facts are:
 
Delta-sigma DAC chips designed and made after late 90's to reproduce XRCD/HDCD/DVD/SACD/DSD/Blue-ray materials recorded ALSO by Delta-Sigma ADC, mastered by heavy handed noise shaping and dithering processes. If the "contruction" topology of the material is already Delta-sigma/noise shaping/dithering, I would say the materials'd better be reproduced similar topologies. That is, if you have ordered a Bigmac, you'd better also order Coke and fries to go with it.
 
R2R or NOS DAC chips were designed before late 90's, to reproduce Redbook CD materials recorded ALSO by R2R/NOS ADC, and mastered by analog mastering techniques. Using R2R DAC to reproduce those materials would make more sense (i.e. Wine to go with Steak)
 
So choose the Sabre if your media liabray is mostly after the 2000s, chose the PCM1704 is your libray is mainly pre 2000s stuff.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

So choose the Sabre if your media liabray is mostly after the 2000s, chose the PCM1704 is your libray is mainly pre 2000s stuff.

 
That is just silly.  One shouldn't use vinyl because the master was recorded on a reel-to-reel?
 
Just because music is encoded to a digital file by a certain type of converter does not mean you need to use a similar type of converter to decode it.  What is good for one purpose is not always good or necessary for another.  Studios can master music (where it has benefits) at 192kHz but that doesn't mean you need to play it back at 192kHz.  Experts in the digital arena such as Dan Lavry has stated that anything beyond 24/96kHz on playback is not beneficial, and the reasons for listening to 24/96kHz files (which are posted in many threads on Head-Fi) deal with filtering and not because of greater information capture, although when recording music some feel the ultrasonic audio has merit.  http://www.digitalprosound.com/Htm/SoapBox/soap2_Apogee.htm  The Nyquist theorem explains why 44.1 contains everything you can possibly hear (although the industry should have really used 48kHz).  http://home.fuse.net/injanius/

 

[borrego]

 
Quote:

 
That is just silly.  One shouldn't use vinyl because the master was recorded on a reel-to-reel?
 
Just because music is encoded to a digital file by a certain type of converter does not mean you need to use a similar type of converter to decode it.  What is good for one purpose is not always good or necessary for another.  Studios can master music (where it has benefits) at 192kHz but that doesn't mean you need to play it back at 192kHz.  Experts in the digital arena such as Dan Lavry has stated that anything beyond 24/96kHz on playback is not beneficial, and the reasons for listening to 24/96kHz files (which are posted in many threads on Head-Fi) deal with filtering and not because of greater information capture, although when recording music some feel the ultrasonic audio has merit.  http://www.digitalprosound.com/Htm/SoapBox/soap2_Apogee.htm  The Nyquist theorem explains why 44.1 contains everything you can possibly hear (although the industry should have really used 48kHz).  http://home.fuse.net/injanius/

 
Silly? I don't think so...
 
I don't think you understand what I said. The difference was not on 16 bit vs 24 bit or 44kHz vs 96kHz, but on the different ADC, noise shaping and most imporantly, the dithering processes/topology used in different era.
 
We are discussing DAC so we are discussing digital audio formats and media. You think vinyl and reel to reel tapes were old stuff? In AD conversion they are no different than a 2010 dynamic microphone, which are outputting analog signal to be converting to digital.
 
The reason for "remastered" 24/96kHz files are because the music companies can add additional dithering noise through the "remastering" technique. There is indeed more information from the 24/96kHz files. Those "additional information" are not from the original sound source, but from the dithering noise and transient intentional added. Think seasoning of cooking.
 
You are right on 24/96kHz is not better. But it is not what I wanted to say. Many people avold buying "remastered" CD and search for the original edition mastered in early 80s and 90s to avoid "remastering"
 
Before declaring I am silly, may I ask if you have any experience on digital recording and audio mastering? Do you know how ADC chips work?
 

 

[Parafeed]

Quote:

 
The reason for "remastered" 24/96kHz files are because the music companies can add additional dithering noise through the "remastering" technique. There is indeed more information from the 24/96kHz files. Those "additional information" are not from the original sound source, but from the dithering noise and transient intentional added. Think seasoning of cooking.

 

Just to be clear, (because I cant believe I just read this), any "additional information" contained in a 24/96 file compared to 16/44.1 is only noise added as a result of dither? (Assuming both files are produced from a high-res digital master or analogue master.)

 

[borrego]

 
Quote:

Just to be clear, (because I cant believe I just read this), any "additional information" contained in a 24/96 file compared to 16/44.1 is only noise added as a result of dither? (Assuming both files are produced from a high-res digital master or analogue master.)

Well, "noise" may be too harsh a word to use. Substituting the word with "patch", "effect", "tune" or whatever words may be easier to receive.
 
Think of the following senario:
 
A rock band make their album at the a particular professional studio. The vocals are recorded with this MXL Revelation microphone (http://www.mxlmics.com/products/Studio_mics/Revelation/Revelation.html ) with a S/N ratio of ..... 76db. The vocals are "perfectly" recorded on master tape.
 
Skipping all the intermediate music production processes here....
 
Their album is released in 2 forms/media: 16bit/44kHz CD and 24bit/96kHz DVD audio
 
A fan of the band purchases both CD and DVD, rips them in 16bit FLAC and 24 bit FLAC respectively, plays the files through his audiophile grade / bit perfect audio system and immediate finds the 24bit FLAC vocal more dynamic, have better micro details....
 
Can you explain why?
 
Answer:
Vocal master tape -> raw chicken meat from KFC supplier
16bit/44kHz CD -> KFC original recipe fried chicken
24bit/96kHz DVD -> KFC spicy recipe fried chicken

 

[Parafeed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by borrego /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Answer:
Vocal master tape -> raw chicken meat from KFC supplier
16bit/44kHz CD -> KFC original recipe fried chicken
24bit/96kHz DVD -> KFC spicy recipe fried chicken

KFC chicken analogy...... You obviously have a deep understanding of "digital recording and audio mastering". LOL

 

[leeperry]

KFC magical chicken thinking is teh coolest.

 

[Parafeed]

Quote:

KFC magical chicken thinking is teh coolest.

Hi-res digital chicken.... Once you've tried the 24 bit wings down-sampled to 16 bit (ATH noise shaped dither applied, of course) you'll appreciate there was never a need for any chicken with a resolution better than 16/44.1!

 

[IPodPJ]

I think free range chicken vs. factory farm chicken would have been a better analogy.

 

[leeperry]

 

Once you've tried the 24 bit wings down-sampled to 16 bit (ATH noise shaped dither applied, of course) you'll appreciate there was never a need for any chicken with a resolution better than 16/44.1!

 
That makes a lot of sense, but I've never been to KFC...nor do I plan to. Makes me wonder if they have Triangular Probability Density Function dithered chicken nuggets at McDonald's, though