[Audio Bling]

Quote:

There is a really good post from Thorsten (AMR) over at AA which explains in "easy" terms the hybrid nature of the Sabre. ie. 6 bit (or 8 bit in stereo config) "real" resolution plus noise shaping.
 
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/digital/messages/15/153466.html

[size=11pt][size=11pt][size=11pt]I followed that discussion over on AA at the time of its writing and so was a little amused when a reference to the MSB “comments” popped up here. Even more amusing were those on this thread who quickly posted comments to the effect that this was proof that the SABRE chip was sub-par.. It surprises me how foolish (dare I say: stupid) some people can be. As the AA thread points out, the MSB “take” was marketing BS pure and simple. MSB were deliberately trying to mislead people by making a bogus case that the SABRE chip was not 32bit. [/size][/size][/size]
[size=11pt][size=11pt] [/size][/size]
[size=11pt][size=11pt][size=11pt]What seems evident to me is that there are some folk around here that have become fervently evangelical in their support of 1704. These folk are desperately trying to make the following case:[/size][/size][/size]
[size=11pt][size=11pt] [/size][/size]
[size=11pt][size=11pt][size=11pt]1. The 1704 chip is sonically superior to the SABRE chip[/size][/size][/size]
[size=11pt][size=11pt] [/size][/size]
[size=11pt][size=11pt][size=11pt]2. 1704 A-gd DACs are going to increase in price some time soon[/size][/size][/size]
[size=11pt][size=11pt] [/size][/size]
[size=11pt][size=11pt][size=11pt]From what I can see there is no evidence for either of these assertions. For one thing, to my knowledge, thus far there has been only one comparo of the NFB-7 (by macrog) and it was fairly complimentary. Others here, however, want to pre-judge it. I can only think that such folk act out of some deep insecurity: perhaps wishing to reassure themselves of their purchase after taking the plunge on a 1704 DAC. I too have a 1704 DAC but am waiting for the reviews of the A-gd SABRE to come in before making an assessment. Surely, this is the smart thing to do.[/size][/size][/size]

 

[Parafeed]

 
Quote:

Quote:
 
[size=11pt][size=11pt][size=11pt]MSB were deliberately trying to mislead people by making a bogus case that the SABRE chip was not 32bit. [/size][/size][/size]
[size=11pt][size=11pt] [/size][/size]

 
Well, that's still open to debate depending on the criteria used to define a 32 bit DAC. Accepts a 32 bit word, has a 32 bit (analogue equivalent) dynamic range, has 32 switch output (R2R ladder)...... It's pretty obvious what criteria MSB would use to the exclusion of all others.
 
I think they could have put a little more thought into that page and whilst pointing out that at heart the Sabre is a delta sigma DAC, they certainly didn't need to use language such as "Big Yawn" or appear as hostile as they do. A simple explanation of their "technology" compared to the other "product" would have sufficed.

 

[Audio Bling]

 
Quote:

Well, that's still open to debate depending on the criteria used to define a 32 bit DAC. Accepts a 32 bit word, has a 32 bit (analogue equivalent) dynamic range, has 32 switch output (R2R ladder)...... It's pretty obvious what criteria MSB would use to the exclusion of all others.
 
I think they could have put a little more thought into that page and whilst pointing out that at heart the Sabre is a delta sigma DAC, they certainly didn't need to use language such as "Big Yawn" or appear as hostile as they do. A simple explanation of their "technology" compared to the other "product" would have sufficed.

I think MSB put quite a bit of thought into that page..
 
Thorsten's point was that there is no strict definition of 32bit. This fact that would be clear to anyone with knowledge of the industry. What authority does MSB have to insist on their own carefully chosen criteria and condemn SABRE?  Clearly, they have an interest to do so and should themselves be condemned for their mischief.
 

 

[Parafeed]

Quote:

I think MSB put quite a bit of thought into that page..
 
Thorsten's point was that there is no strict definition of 32bit. This fact that would be clear to anyone with knowledge of the industry. What authority does MSB have to insist on their own carefully chosen criteria and condemn SABRE?  Clearly, they have an interest to do so and should themselves be condemned for their mischief.
 

 
Exactly, there is no definition. There used to be a generally accepted definition, but since the advent of single bit DACs (or several bit - multi-bit sigma delta) becoming mainstream, all bets are off. Which hardly makes it wrong for MSB to point out the "true" DAC resolution of the Sabre according to a definition, that as the last manufacturer of a "true" R2R/ladder/sign-magnitude (or whatever it's now called) DAC, (with the exception of the PCM1704 if it is still in production), it's hardly surprising they would use.
 
BTW, I'm not defending MSB. The tone of their page damages their reputation, IMHO.

 

[Nebby]

Regardless of the content of that page, the tone alone certainly gave me that impression as well.
 
Quote:

BTW, I'm not defending MSB. The tone of their page damages their reputation, IMHO.

 

[ninjikiran]

After looking at the price of their items... it was kind of obvious.  I am pretty sure their DAC's sound good but their pricing is for teh lulz.
 
That said if the Sabre chip is detrimental to SQ it would seem that audio is reaching the same point as the transition between CRT's and LCD's.  Where CRT's for a long time were much better~ some would argue they still are but those people are crazy. I wouldn't want to buy a unit with a chip that is a downgrade from current DAC tech though, even if it costs me yx more, but at the same time I wouldn't write out the technology which is still in its infancy.
 
Some actual benefits if this chip is supposed to be easier to implement is it being adapted to consumer electronics giving everybody a big upgrade

.

 

[leeperry]

 

 
CRT's for a long time were much better~ some would argue they still are

 
CRT's are still much better than LCD's....their native CR is unlimited, they accept any kind of refresh rate(so your movies don't hiccup in 60Hz, duh), their sub-pixels dont "die", they don't suffer from those grossly oversaturated gamuts, they have a much lower latency, they don't use dithering to trick your eyes, etc etc.
 
But I agree that the "fervently evangelical [..] support of 1704" is uncalled for as far as specs are concerned...the newest D_S DAC's have come a long way noise-wise, we're not in the 80's anymore.

 

[Nebby]

True, but the downside is that you now have a boat anchor on your desk (in the larger screen sizes)
 
Quote:

CRT's are still much better than LCD's....their native CR is unlimited, they accept any kind of refresh rate(so your movies don't hiccup in 60Hz, duh), their sub-pixels dont "die", they don't suffer from those grossly oversaturated gamuts, they have a much lower latency, they don't use dithering to trick your eyes, etc etc.
 

 

[Parafeed]

Quote:

the newest D_S DAC's have come a long way noise-wise, we're not in the 80's anymore.

Exactly!
 
Of course, the irony is that if MSB wanted to make a point they could have picked up on the fact that delta-sigma is heading back into multi-bit territory with the latest hybrid designs and explained why. From the beginnings of single bit DACs, (bitstream, mash, legato link - remember those buzz words), now we have 5 or 6 bit sigma delta DACs. I wonder where it will end.......... A great big circle? LOL.
 
Is it any coincidence that people whose negative impression of the older generation of single bit DACs now find the latest hybrid sigma-delta examples to sound OK/good/excellent. Perhaps there is a correlation between "real" resolution and SQ? (Tongue in cheek rhetorical question). The additional bits lead to a reduction of quantization error (noise). Coincidence, I think not. IMHO Thorsten hit the nail on the head when he said, "The ESS Sabre DAC's can actually represent CD Data in the analogue domain with no or very little noiseshaping, which may explain the fact that many find it superior to many other DAC's."

 

[leeperry]

AKM already explained that even the old AK4396 could beat the R2R DAC chips in their own noise territory, but as previously stated many ppl feel religious about those obsolete R2R chips...it'd be like sitting before a religious place and tell all the ppl showing up that god does not exist.
 
Richard Kulavik of AKM Semiconductors explained it this way : "This DAC is a large departure from other delta-sigma DACs designed by us and others like BurrBrown, Analog Devices and Cirrus Logic. The AK4396 is an entirely new modulator, pioneered and patented by AKM. It achieves something unique. In the past, many of the old Phillips and BurrBrown parts were R-2R* based products. These older products were looked upon as some of the best. One of the reasons was high frequency noise. In older R-2R parts, HF noise was not present. In all delta-sigma parts prior to the AK4396, everyone has fought HF noise caused from the delta-sigma modulator with the insertion of large filters and other parts to attempt to solve a problem created by the delta-sigma design. The AK4396 today effectively does not suffer any modulator-induced HF noise and is over 60dB better than the nearest Cirrus and BB devices. All of this HF noise can cause many audible artifacts downstream. That is the 'miracle' we believe is making the difference today. This part gives you the performance and linearity of a delta-sigma device with the noise performance of an R-2R part, something that was never previously available."
 
and what colors the sound the most is usally the output stage, far more than the DAC chip itself. There's many very expensive DAC's based on AK4399 that shouldn't sound half bad.
 

True, but the downside is that you now have a boat anchor on your desk (in the larger screen sizes)
 

Oooooh, it's so thin and slim! too bad the PQ is crap

 

[ninjikiran]

PQ looks good to me on most LCD's, the gap is closing.  The wide screen, and large size is well worth the sacrifices.

 

[Nebby]

I wouldn't say crap, the screens have gotten to be rather good IMO.
 
Quote:

Oooooh, it's so thin and slim! too bad the PQ is crap

 

[ciphercomplete]

Eh.. I'm sticking with Plasma until LED/LCD catches up.  LCD's never looked good or right to me.

 

[leeperry]

 

PQ looks good to me on most LCD's, the gap is closing.  The wide screen, and large size is well worth the sacrifices.

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.

 

[ciphercomplete]

Quote:

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

Are you intentionally trying to blow this thread up?