Latest Thread Images

Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff)
Jun 13, 2015 at 9:09 AM Post #5,851 of 6,500
Try a search for enob. Effective Number of Bits
 
Jun 13, 2015 at 10:15 AM Post #5,852 of 6,500
roundround said:
Thanks mate,
That's a 380 pages thread, can you perhaps point me to the relevant page?
Click to expand...

 
This post is quite informative.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-delta-sigma-kinda-sucks-just-to-get-you-to-think-about-stuff/5640#post_11662900
 
But the main discussion was, as mentioned, a few pages earlier (somewhere
blink.gif
 ).
 
Jun 13, 2015 at 11:10 AM Post #5,853 of 6,500
actually https://www.xiph.org/video/ is a popular suggestion - I know Monty, he knows his stuff - but I'm allergic to video and already fairly expert in the subject so I never watched all the way through
 
some make a big deal of distinguishing between upsampling and oversampling - the context should make it clear and unless you haven't any other points to score I'd ignore "misuse" if the rest was correct
 
Jun 14, 2015 at 3:22 PM Post #5,854 of 6,500
Have a Monarchy 22B on the way. Had a similar question about the PCM63 versus the PCM1704. Is the 63 a better sounding DAC chip, Mr. Poon said he would send me 1704s if I wanted to upgrade to 24 bits from the current 20. Good or bad idea?

Edit: Plenty of info on the 22B, but none on the upgrade (is it one?).
 
Jun 14, 2015 at 5:37 PM Post #5,855 of 6,500
purrin said:
   
I don't think there is a strong correlation with price in my rankings. For example, note these expensive DACs that I did not particularly care for:
 
  • PSA DSD $5,999
  • PSA PWD2 (new production, not upgraded)  $2,995
  • Chord Hugo $2,445
  • Lampizator $4,950
  • Lampizator Big $6850 (starting price)
  • Eximus DP-1 $3,150
  • Teac HA-501 $799 (not that expensive, but horrid)
  • Mytek Digital Stereo 192-DSD $1695 (not that expensive, but unlistenable)
 
Since I am no longer updating the list, I may as well mention many other expensive DACs that I also do not care for:
 
  • Anything from MSB. Good stuff, but too expensive for what you get.
  • Anything from Wadia. I don't like their house sound.
  • Anything from Meridian. I don't like their house sound.
  • Resolution Audio Cantata.
  • There are a few more, I can't name them off the top of my head.
 
I know of PS Audio's reputation as a company, but credit is due to where they succeeded (the PWD1 units upgraded to 2).
Click to expand...

Do you mean the UD-501?
 
HA-501 is an amp.
 
Jun 14, 2015 at 8:16 PM Post #5,856 of 6,500
@KeithEmo Great posts.
 
Jun 14, 2015 at 11:04 PM Post #5,857 of 6,500
wildcatsare1 said:
Have a Monarchy 22B on the way. Had a similar question about the PCM63 versus the PCM1704. Is the 63 a better sounding DAC chip, Mr. Poon said he would send me 1704s if I wanted to upgrade to 24 bits from the current 20. Good or bad idea?

Edit: Plenty of info on the 22B, but none on the upgrade (is it one?).
Click to expand...

 
Stick with the PCM63s. 1704 is a downgrade. 
 
Jun 15, 2015 at 1:14 AM Post #5,860 of 6,500
My question was more if anyone could hear audible differences between them, on the same dac and setup but I guess the measurements speak loudly. The extra 4 bits appear to give the PCM1704 110, 112 dB dynamic range vs the different iteration of the PCM63's 100, 104, 108 dB DR. All of this as well as the 0.2 dB difference in low level linearity you mentioned are audibly transparent to human hearing though.
 
Are there any significant differences to human hearing in the measurements of the two chips?
 
From a quick look at the specs, they appear to mean that swapping out one chip for the other would be a waste of time for audible differences. So the rest of the dac would be of more importance. Safe assessment? 
 
Jun 15, 2015 at 1:46 AM Post #5,863 of 6,500
dreamking said:
   The extra 4 bits appear to give the PCM1704 110, 112 dB dynamic range vs the different iteration of the PCM63's 100, 104, 108 dB DR. All of this as well as the 0.2 dB difference in low level linearity you mentioned are audibly transparent to human hearing though.
 
Click to expand...

 
Those DR figures aren't apples to apples. Note in the small print that A-weighting is adopted for the PCM1704 - this normally makes the figure around 2dB better than an unweighted measurement.
 
Jun 15, 2015 at 2:13 AM Post #5,864 of 6,500
sapientiam said:
   
Those DR figures aren't apples to apples. Note in the small print that A-weighting is adopted for the PCM1704 - this normally makes the figure around 2dB better than an unweighted measurement.
Click to expand...

 
There's one mention of A-weighting for the PCM63's SNR in notes, no other weighting mentions though.
 
When does Burr-Brown not apply A-weighting for these figures? It's an industry standard too, so what other weighting should be assumed, from the same tech company?
 
Jun 15, 2015 at 2:23 AM Post #5,865 of 6,500
I'd not assume A-weighting, unless its explicitly mentioned. The PCM63 only has its idle channel SNR measured with an A-weight filter (note 6 in the table), all other measurements don't mention weighting so it would be fair to assume unweighted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top