Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff)
post-11732167
Post #6,136 of 6,423

evillamer

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
775
Reaction score
168
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Posts
775
Likes
168
on the topic of mastering, check out this video:
 
It seems that the mastering engineer tunes it by his trained ears and the inputs from the client.
 
 
 
 
 
     Share This Post       
post-11732333
Post #6,137 of 6,423

BassDigger

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
530
Reaction score
93
Location
In at the deep end.
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Location
In at the deep end.
Posts
530
Likes
93
 

I guess if you were on the supreme court you would be a hardline textualist.  Just substitute "magic" for superior or just good sound quality, but something tells me that you are being dense on purpose.  I'm not trying to be argumentative here but seriously?!!?
 
Well which is saying what I said in another way.  In fact I stated a couple of pages back that IMO NOS/R2R dacs suck.  You have spent many paragraphs arguing that chips don't make a big deal (or not at all) not I.  A few of us have heard and compared a great many SD and R2R dacs ourselves.  So are we just crazy?  Did we all just happen to mostly hear SD dacs that suck while lucking up and only hearing R2R dacs that are great?  I never said that all the SD dacs and cd players I have heard were bad.  I quite liked the Tentlabs and the Perfectwave DAC (unsure of which version) and many others I just wouldnt buy one when I can get a Lite Audio DAC 83, Master 7 or Yggy.    
 
On the contrary; I like your use of the word 'magic'. It implies the occurrence of something wonderful, that we don't understand.
It seems that many of us agree that R-2R dacs do something better than D-S dacs, but we're not sure what or how.
 
No, actually you're right; it's not magic; it's witchcraft! 
 
 
(BTW: I appreciate the guys technical explanations, but not his analogies, and I do think he's doing it on purpose. I've had enough; I've other things to do.)
 
     Share This Post       
post-11732430
Post #6,138 of 6,423

evillamer

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
775
Reaction score
168
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Posts
775
Likes
168
   
To put it bluntly, it may well cost YOU $80 for that R2R DAC chip, and $200 per unit to design and build the extra circuitry that you'd need to use an available R2R DAC chip for modern audio applications. However, Texas Instruments, who knows more about it than you do, can design it much better..... and, while they may spend $1 million developing the design, they can add it to the chip for $1 each, and sell it to you for $2 - at a nice profit. They can also sell that whole chip for $20 at a profit if they sell enough of them. However, they can't (and won't) do that unless they're pretty sure they can sell at least a few million of them.
 
 
I think this post by Jason Stoddard(of Schiit Audio) is the perfect counter arguement. However we must note that jason posted this story section before keith's post.
 
I have truncated his post due to length, you can read his full post here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/6855#post_11730790
 
 
  2015 Chapter 11: 
Food Scientists vs. Michelin Stars
 
 
 
The Insult That Backfired
 
Early on, soon after Schiit launched, the objectivist movement sniffed us out and began throwing various insults our way. “They must not use any test equipment, they just talk about how things sound.” “Those designs are huge, inefficient, and overpriced…probably unreliable, too.”
 
And my personal favorite, which went something like, “How can a tiny audiophile company imagine it could do better than the latest TI op-amp, they have a worldwide staff of scientists and engineers working on those designs?”
 
When I first read that, I was taken aback. Because, yep, it sounds completely insane. One or two engineers at a tiny company that started in a garage with miniscule resources, pitted against the combined might of, say, TI or Analog Devices? Most people would bet on the big guys.
 
But then I started thinking about it.
 
And I realized: Frito-Lay probably has more food scientists working on the newest formula for Doritos than there are Michelin-starred chefs in the world…but which would you rather eat?
 
And…Darden Restaurants and Taco Bell, Inc and McDonald’s probably have tons of food scientists stapled to their beancounters…but wouldn’t you rather have something fresh from a Cordon Bleu chef’s kitchen?
 
Both of those are perfect examples of where single individuals trump teams of scientists armed with the latest technology all the time.
 
Why?
 
Two reasons, I think:
 
  • They actually give a crap about raising the bar on how something tastes (and have the knowledge to at least point in the direction of a solution.)
  • They don’t have to worry about packagability, shelf life, merchantability, etc. (and yeah, I know, this is a big one.)
 
So, happy with turning the insult around (though I never said anything about it), I let it go.
 
Until today, when I realized this is a great way to describe what we’re doing with digital audio.
 
 
Digital, Michelin Stars, and Flavor Technicians
 
I’ve gone over this before, so I won’t go into insane depth again, but here’s the gist of what we’re trying to do with multibit digital audio playback: preserve the original samples of the vast majority of music out there, in order to offer the best possible playback fidelity.
 
And yeah, I know, some people think we’re full of Schiit when we start talking about closed-form digital filters and how most DACs simply replace everything with a reduced-bit-depth approximation of the original. That’s fine. I’ll let them argue with Baldr (Mike Moffat) about that one.
 
But here it is: we do have a stated purpose. And that stated purpose is to make the most out of the ingredients we have.
 
Kinda like a top chef, huh?
 
(Or, well, maybe at least a good one. Throw me a bone here.)
 
Contrast this to the approach taken by delta-sigma DACs. The vast majority of music in this world (about 99.99%--do the math on the tracks available yourself) goes in at 16/44 and gets transformed into a multi-order noise-shaped 2- to 5-bit approximation of the original. Yes, even in some very exotic designs.
 
Which, if you think about it, isn’t that a lot like the food scientists at Frito-Lay and Taco Bell trying to preserve some shade of the original ingredients through latest-tech additives, preservatives, flavor enhancers and modifiers?
 
“So you’re saying that everyone else is wrong?” you ask, arms crossed.
 
Not at all.
 
What matters in food is in the tasting. And there are some true food artists working in the molecular gastronomy space. And then there’s personal preference, too. Sometimes it’s time for a bag of Doritos. And sometimes it’s time for yellowtail sashimi with lime and burdock.
 
If someone achieves the perfect result for your ears, don’t worry about this analogy. Sit back, listen, and enjoy. Hell, we make delta-sigma DACs too, and they sound plenty fine. And, especially in the case of $99-149 products, there won’t ever be a multibit option at that price range.
 
But, as Mike has said, we’re gonna be bringing multibit technology to our upgradable products…and then you have a choice. Stay delta-sigma, or go multibit. It’s entirely up to you.
 
 
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: Argo Duck
post-11732485
Post #6,139 of 6,423

jcx

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
2,371
Reaction score
368
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Posts
2,371
Likes
368
no one denies you can color or flavor your sound with electronics design and component choices - however it is hard to understand why this is the "superior" position to having accurate, transparent electronics which many of us with decades of EE experience and similar time hobby interest in audio think isn't that hard today
 
and Jason is (ab)using "objectivists" in a classic rhetorical style - anonymous, context free "they said" attributions
 
I am disappointed in fact given the early tone of "letting us in", "cutting the hype", his background as an engineer - but given his marketing and professional writing experience it is hard to believe he isn't being deliberate in his choice of rhetorical tools
 
 
I don't know what others said but just recently somewhere on head-fi I pointed to reasons to believe leveraging ADI's institutional knowledge and $Billion fab line with the AD5791 was likely technically superior than what a MSB is doing for high multiples of Schiits pricing
 
     Share This Post       
post-11732533
Post #6,140 of 6,423

drez

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
2,921
Reaction score
180
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Posts
2,921
Likes
180
I can say quite easily what R2R foes well in audiophile terms. Timbre and tonal colours are typically denser and richer in texture and more natural. Treble is not as aggressive. I don't understand the concept of plankton or how this is better. I find in most cases there are tradeoffs to make these qualities. In my limited time with Yggy I was unable to determine any tradeoffs. Just a fuller acoustic, which I associated with improvement to my DS dac also. Perhaps the acoustic was a little less rry and reserved than I am used to. To be honest though the real question is why R2R sounds this way. Is this more accurate or less so. This really needs to be answered. Going from measurements would appear many R2R DAC's are less accurate. Apparently Yggy's chips are more accurate than DS, but I don't understand this. I was told DAC accuracy is different from effective resolution? ??
 
     Share This Post       
post-11732534
Post #6,141 of 6,423

AudioBear

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
1,656
Reaction score
1,020
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Posts
1,656
Likes
1,020
  no one denies you can color or flavor your sound with electronics design and component choices - however it is hard to understand why this is the "superior" position to having accurate, transparent electronics which many of us with decades of EE experience and similar time hobby interest in audio think isn't that hard today
I'm big on neutral and transparent so I can use software equalization to produce the sound I want.  I expect the electronics to just plain get out of the way and disappear so I can shape the music the way I want it.  It's ok me with me if people want to be purists or subjectivists or mix components to achieve the same result because it's a hobby they enjoy.  I just hope that they realize that the "bit perfect" sound on the CD or download they are listening to has been acquired by an imperfect microphone, digitized by an imperfect AD and mixed, equalized and styled by software.  It's not real, it's shaped and there's nothing wrong with reshaping it any way you want (with the components you chose or the software you use)--that's your choice.
 
I take Jason and Baldr to be trying simply to give us their best effort at translation to analog and amplification of the bits that are on the CD and then get out of the way.  That suits me fine.  Many companies take that approach, others have a house sound, and still others have many flavors available.  I prefer the vanilla so I can add any flavor I want.  I just don't understand why equalization held in such low regard.   I don't see it as any different than picking a bassy headphone.  But that's just me.
 
     Share This Post       
post-11732631
Post #6,142 of 6,423

evillamer

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
775
Reaction score
168
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Posts
775
Likes
168
Speaking of which it will roughly cost 40% more for audiophile grade R2R vs audiophile grade Sigma Delta if you based off Audio-gd dacs.
 
TOTL Balanced R2R: USD$2180
http://www.audio-gd.com/Master/Master-7/M7EN.htm
 
TOTL Balanced Sigma Delta: US$1380
http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/NFB732/NFB7.32EN.htm
 
 
Single Ended R2R: $750
http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/DAC1911/DAC19EN.htm
 
Single End Sigma Delta: $499
http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/NFB32014/NFB32014EN.htm
 
 
Is 40% more worth paying for? Maybe we have to ask @stillhart, @bimmer100 or someone who have owned both audio-gd sigma-delta and r2r dacs.
 
     Share This Post       
post-11732743
Post #6,143 of 6,423

BassDigger

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
530
Reaction score
93
Location
In at the deep end.
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Location
In at the deep end.
Posts
530
Likes
93
  Speaking of which it will roughly cost 40% more for audiophile grade R2R vs audiophile grade Sigma Delta if you based off Audio-gd dacs.
 
TOTL Balanced R2R: USD$2180
http://www.audio-gd.com/Master/Master-7/M7EN.htm
 
TOTL Balanced Sigma Delta: US$1380
http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/NFB732/NFB7.32EN.htm
 
 
Single Ended R2R: $750
http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/DAC1911/DAC19EN.htm
 
Single End Sigma Delta: $499
http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/NFB32014/NFB32014EN.htm
 
 
Is 40% more worth paying for? Maybe we have to ask @stillhart, @bimmer100 or someone who have owned both audio-gd sigma-delta and r2r dacs.
 
I get the point; comparing like for like; use components from the same manufacturer to keep everything as similar as possible.
 
But, if it is concluded that the R-2R dacs sound an amazing 40% better, than their 40% cheaper D-S siblings, aren't people still going to say that a 40% more expensive D-S dac will be just as good?
 
I think that maybe this kind of comparison should be more about defining what the differences actually are between the technologies, regardless of price. It's already a 'given' that R-2R is more expensive.
 
     Share This Post       
post-11733101
Post #6,144 of 6,423

wahsmoh

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
1,460
Reaction score
321
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Posts
1,460
Likes
321
  I think the sound quality for common folks has improved quite abit in the past 10 years when you compare 2015 to 2005.  Just take your Iphone 6/6Plus and compare it to your Ipod Classic 5th/6th gen and compare the sound quality. Not sure if its solely due to the DAC chip or other things in the chain like amps and software/mixer or just engineering improvements. This group of people don't really care about how many bits or what kind of digital filter is their device using.
 
But for audiophiles in this head-fi community in question, we seek the most authentic/natural/musical reproduction thus we will access and evaluate gears and will pay quite abit more than common folks just for any improvements even if it's only slightly better. If you search around head-fi forums, you will find many written impressions from those who upgraded from audiophile grade Sigma Delta Dacs to audiophile grade R2R dac and most, if not all these impressions will be positive. All of them will tell you in one form or another that vocals brings more emotional connection, instruments sound more real and music flows more naturally. Does this mean that Sigma Delta dacs don't have it's place in Audiophile land? No. We have to thank companies like ESS tech who pushed sigma delta sound quality boundaries and allowed for more DACs variety in the audio marketplace especially in the <$1k price range. But I think in 2015, it is high time we "encourage" these semiconductor companies to come out with better audio chips, especially companies like Ti and AD(except AKM & ESS) who has not release any new improved top of the line  designs for quite some time.
 
I brought my non-audiophile sister and brother-in-law to listen to my R2R setup(just audiogd m7+m9+Yamaha HS8) with some live concert music, and they said that my system sound so real, they feel as if they were in seating in the live concert right now.
I just got some powered monitors that I'm going to hook up this weekend after I build some speaker stands. Fostex PM841 are 3-way speakers tweet, 4'' midrange, and 8'' woofer. I figured I would go powered monitors since I do not have a large power amp for speakers. I am going to be using my Asgard 2 as a preamp and Theta DAC (R2R) being fed S/PDIF as my source. I haven't had the chance to test out the speakers  yet  but I am very excited to get them positioned and see how well they image.
 
I do recall briefly testing out my M-audio BX5d2 (entry level cheapo monitors) and they sounded a lot better with the R2R DAC and more 3D in presentation but still noticeably weak in the midrange and tizzy on the highs. I have been working a really good job so my speaker/dac/amp budget is going to change here really soon. 
 
     Share This Post       
post-11733437
Post #6,145 of 6,423

KeithEmo

Member of the Trade: Emotiva
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,696
Reaction score
848
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Posts
1,696
Likes
848
 

I guess if you were on the supreme court you would be a hardline textualist.  Just substitute "magic" for superior or just good sound quality, but something tells me that you are being dense on purpose.  I'm not trying to be argumentative here but seriously?!!?
 
 
Well which is saying what I said in another way.  In fact I stated a couple of pages back that IMO NOS/R2R dacs suck.  You have spent many paragraphs arguing that chips don't make a big deal (or not at all) not I.  A few of us have heard and compared a great many SD and R2R dacs ourselves.  So are we just crazy?  Did we all just happen to mostly hear SD dacs that suck while lucking up and only hearing R2R dacs that are great?  I never said that all the SD dacs and cd players I have heard were bad.  I quite liked the Tentlabs and the Perfectwave DAC (unsure of which version) and many others I just wouldnt buy one when I can get a Lite Audio DAC 83, Master 7 or Yggy.    
 
I wasn't picking on you for using the word magic - and I'm sorry if I came across that way.
 
Honestly, no, I don't just "think you're all crazy". However, I'm not nearly that certain that you didn't "just happen to hear R2R DACs that you thought sounded good and D-S DACs you didn't like". And, in my opinion, this possibility is made more likely by the current market. (If I'm a small company, selling an R2R DAC, I'm going to make sure that it sounds like what the majority of my potential customers - who've come to me because they want an R2R DAC - expect it to sound. So my DAC could sound good to you because the technology itself is superior, or simply because I've made sure to "voice" it to sound like what I know you want.)
 
I don't believe that "all chips sound the same", but I do claim that the support circuitry makes a bigger difference than the chip. I also don't know for sure if there is some specific error that D-S DACs unavoidably inflict on the signal that R2R DACs do not... but I most certainly haven't seen any convincing proof that there is. To me, saying "they sound better" is a good first step, and the next step is to determine why, which then leads to "fixing the problem across the board". However, this discussion seems to have stalled at "they sound better". (And the few claims made against D-S DACs, like that they may modulate a noise floor that is already below the noise floor of most decent power amps, don't really seem to me to explain why they might sound audibly different.)
 
(The errors introduced by oversampling, which we seem to agree aren't an audible problem, are pretty easy to explain, measure, and see on an oscilloscope trace. However, I haven't seen any plausible claims that the output signal of "a bunch of R2R DACs that sound good" shares some particular trait or lacks a certain error that is shared by "all D-S DACs that sound bad". And, yes, I would like to know, once and for all, if all the R2R DACs you especially like can reproduce a certain signal accurately that a D-S DAC cannot, of if they share some particular inaccuracy or flaw that you happen to enjoy, or, for that matter, if you're just imagining it, or maybe if I'm imagining that I don't hear it.)
 
I also DO have a lot of faith in "the market". In other words, if we do eventually figure out what the actual "problem" is, and there are enough people who can hear it and agree that it's a problem, ad they're all willing to pay an extra $5 to avoid it, I figure that TI probably probably will "fix" it in next years $5 DAC chip.... which would benefit all of us.
 
However, before they're going to listen, we need to tell them functionally what the problem is.... (as in "with this signal, the scope picture looks like this, when it should really look like that"). As a start, if the folks who seem to believe that "the big problem with D-S DACs is that they modulate the noise floor" are right, that should be easy enough to prove.... all they have to do is to create a test signal that contains the same modulated noise floor they insist sounds bad on D-S DACs and play it through an R2R DAC - if they're correct, then doing so should make that R2R DAC "sound exactly like a D-S DAC)... which would go a long way towards proving both that they do sound inherently different, and what the difference is... and show the guys who make the chips which problem they need to fix.
 
 
 

 
     Share This Post       
post-11733630
Post #6,146 of 6,423

jexby

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
1,119
Reaction score
161
Joined
May 29, 2013
Posts
1,119
Likes
161
faith in "the market"? feh.
the DAC chip makers market (to profitability) is not tied to audio fans searching for holy grail of quality,
but to massive adoption in consumer grade equipment sales.
 
now that the original author has left this thread, happy to do the same myself.
unsub.
bicker on.
 
     Share This Post       
post-11733647
Post #6,147 of 6,423

KeithEmo

Member of the Trade: Emotiva
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,696
Reaction score
848
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Posts
1,696
Likes
848
   
I think this post by Jason Stoddard(of Schiit Audio) is the perfect counter arguement. However we must note that jason posted this story section before keith's post.
 
I have truncated his post due to length, you can read his full post here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/6855#post_11730790
 
 
 
If you were hoping that I was going to disagree with Jason, then I'm going to have to disappoint you... I don't disagree with anything he said. Delta-Sigma DACs were designed to deliver the best possible performance and price/performance ratio - BASED ON WHAT THE OVERALL DAC MARKET ASKED FOR. You can pretty well guess that this includes low noise, high precision (accuracy), low distortion, and other such things. Since TI, and their competitors, sell literally tens or hundreds of millions of DACs, and there are several alternative manufacturers offering competing products, you can indeed assume that they succeeded pretty well. However, you can also assume that the vast majority of their sales are to companies other than producers of small-market audiophile products, so it's quite possible that their priorities, and those of their customers, are different than yours or mine. Which makes it quite possible that a small company, with "audiophile priorities", may well be able to create a product that better meets "audiophile needs" by doing it a different way.
 
(However, it isn't automatic, and so it's also quite possible that the massive development and research budgets available to big companies do actually often enable them to produce a chip for $2 that really is better all around.) However, because there is a lot of competition, and most of their customers almost certainly do have lists of what they do consider important, and would probably notice if the chips they were buying didn't work exactly as advertised, I think you can be pretty certain that they aren't "trying to sneak anything by anyone".
 
The TI PCM1704 (one of the last remaining available 24 bit R2R DACs) was scheduled for end of life several years ago, but sufficient interest from audiophile manufacturers convinced TI to continue to produce them... at a price sufficiently inflated to compensate them for the aggravation of continuing to produce a product with high production costs and low sales volume. However, you will note that the part is now listed as "end of life" and the "recommended current alternative part" is in fact a Delta-Sigma type (it's actually a hybrid, where some bits are rendered "directly", but most are handled by Delta-Sigma circuitry). If you think about it for a minute, you will also realize that this status prevents most larger companies, and those with large design budgets, from using this chip; after all, who is going to spend a lot of money to design a product that uses a particular part, knowing that the part may soon become unavailable? Someone who builds products ten at a time in his garage, or even 100 at a time in a small facility, can afford to use a part until the bin is empty; but someone who plans spend $1 million designing a unit which he hopes to sell 10,000 units of next year, can't risk having to redesign it all over again when he hits the bottom of the bin.
 
The problem that I find with many audiophiles is a tendency - which I share - to "enjoy the chase" and to "seek for treasure". Quite simply, we would rather believe that we've "found a treasure made by a little old guy living in the woods" than that the mass produced $2 part made by TI just may be superior. The subject then drifts into "the objectivists", who are usually characterized as "only paying attention to the numbers", and who like the $2 chip "because it measures well", and "the emotionalists", who honestly seem to just plain be unable to even consider the possibility that a cheap mass-market product might actually do what it's supposed to do pretty well, and often end up insisting "it just sounds better to me". (SOmetimes they are able to bakc up that claim in a real double-blind test that excludes their expectations from the equation; other times not.)
 
(Another not-very-well-kept marketing secret is that "exclusivity and scarcity breed perception of increased value". In other words, tell someone that they're part of an exclusive group being offered a product, or that "they may not be available soon", or "we only have a few left", and most people will automatically "feel" that it is more valuable and want it a lot more. THis is very well known, and is the basis of every "quantities are limited" and "exclusive offer" ad you've ever seen on TV. Since R2R DAC chips, like the PCM1704, are legitimately "scarce and soon to become unavailable", you also have to assume that the fact that they are tends to bias people in favor of their being "rare and valuable" - which, in turn, leads people to expect "something special" from them.)
 
There are more than a few small audio companies out there who produce badly designed audio products, based on faulty engineering, and which measure and sound as bad as that would lead you to believe, but who still have a "loyal following" of people who simply like the way they sound. (Please note that I absolutely do NOT include Schiit Audio in that category. Their products are well designed and, as far as I know, all perform as they were intended to.)
 
As for what role expectations play in what we hear, and what degree marketing influences what companies sell, I'll just leave you with one comment about Schiit's products....

If they didn't want the knowledge that it's an R2R DAC to influence your opinion of Yggdrasil, then they wouldn't tell you it was an R2R DAC.
 
My point, though, is that the fact that it costs more to build an R2R DAC is simply a fact.
It does suggest that the current market doesn't support the sale of quantities of R2R DACs.
However, neither of those in any way suggests that R2R DACs are (or are not) inherently better.
 
Therefore, as a bottom line, I'll give you the same advice that Jason usually does....
If you've got $x to spend on a product, listen to all (or at least several) of the options in your price range, and buy the one that sounds best to you.
 
     Share This Post       
post-11733650
Post #6,148 of 6,423

BassDigger

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
530
Reaction score
93
Location
In at the deep end.
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Location
In at the deep end.
Posts
530
Likes
93
@KeithEmo
 
Ok, I'm in a mood to humour you some more.
 
Your desire for an explanation is perhaps expecting a bit too much; maybe a 'sound science' type discussion, with the mad scientists that lurk around there, might get a little nearer to the answer (or just completely deny that there's any possibility of a difference). 
 
But, for what it's worth, and as I've stated before, my belief is that it's perhaps a timing issue; the fact (as I understand it) is that D-S does more processing and dividing of the signal, than R-2R, and then has to reconstitute it, at high speed, making it more likely that timing discrepancies (yes, such as jitter) will have some kind of an audible effect.
 
We've been through this before; I said and you said, but the testimony of other experts, and in my experience the key thing that R-2R does better is musicality. Another adjective (that could mean anything to anyone), but I'm referring to the complexities of beats and rhythms that are much more realistic, 'funkier' with r2r.
 
Now, where can we find a 'funkyness' meter? 
 
 
     Share This Post       
post-11734055
Post #6,149 of 6,423

evillamer

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
775
Reaction score
168
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Posts
775
Likes
168
Last I checked the pcm1704uk is still listed as NRND and not EOL/obsolete/end of production.

http://www.ti.com/product/pricebuy.tsp?genericPartNumber=PCM1704
 
     Share This Post       
post-11734106
Post #6,150 of 6,423

preproman

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
10,624
Reaction score
769
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Posts
10,624
Likes
769
   
I wasn't picking on you for using the word magic - and I'm sorry if I came across that way.
 
Honestly, no, I don't just "think you're all crazy". However, I'm not nearly that certain that you didn't "just happen to hear R2R DACs that you thought sounded good and D-S DACs you didn't like". And, in my opinion, this possibility is made more likely by the current market. (If I'm a small company, selling an R2R DAC, I'm going to make sure that it sounds like what the majority of my potential customers - who've come to me because they want an R2R DAC - expect it to sound. So my DAC could sound good to you because the technology itself is superior, or simply because I've made sure to "voice" it to sound like what I know you want.)
 
I don't believe that "all chips sound the same", but I do claim that the support circuitry makes a bigger difference than the chip. I also don't know for sure if there is some specific error that D-S DACs unavoidably inflict on the signal that R2R DACs do not... but I most certainly haven't seen any convincing proof that there is. To me, saying "they sound better" is a good first step, and the next step is to determine why, which then leads to "fixing the problem across the board". However, this discussion seems to have stalled at "they sound better". (And the few claims made against D-S DACs, like that they may modulate a noise floor that is already below the noise floor of most decent power amps, don't really seem to me to explain why they might sound audibly different.)
 
(The errors introduced by oversampling, which we seem to agree aren't an audible problem, are pretty easy to explain, measure, and see on an oscilloscope trace. However, I haven't seen any plausible claims that the output signal of "a bunch of R2R DACs that sound good" shares some particular trait or lacks a certain error that is shared by "all D-S DACs that sound bad". And, yes, I would like to know, once and for all, if all the R2R DACs you especially like can reproduce a certain signal accurately that a D-S DAC cannot, of if they share some particular inaccuracy or flaw that you happen to enjoy, or, for that matter, if you're just imagining it, or maybe if I'm imagining that I don't hear it.)
 
I also DO have a lot of faith in "the market". In other words, if we do eventually figure out what the actual "problem" is, and there are enough people who can hear it and agree that it's a problem, ad they're all willing to pay an extra $5 to avoid it, I figure that TI probably probably will "fix" it in next years $5 DAC chip.... which would benefit all of us.
 
However, before they're going to listen, we need to tell them functionally what the problem is.... (as in "with this signal, the scope picture looks like this, when it should really look like that"). As a start, if the folks who seem to believe that "the big problem with D-S DACs is that they modulate the noise floor" are right, that should be easy enough to prove.... all they have to do is to create a test signal that contains the same modulated noise floor they insist sounds bad on D-S DACs and play it through an R2R DAC - if they're correct, then doing so should make that R2R DAC "sound exactly like a D-S DAC)... which would go a long way towards proving both that they do sound inherently different, and what the difference is... and show the guys who make the chips which problem they need to fix.
 
 
 

Great post.

 
     Share This Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top