Wildcatsare1
Headphoneus Supremus
As long as manufactures think consumers want Sabre, that is what they will make. Hopefully the R2R revolution will push them to improve the sonics of brand, versus improved features (DSD looking at you).
Yes the Lite DAC-83 intrgiues me - but after rolling through a hlaf dozen DACs over the years - I'm a tube DAC fan! So I took a stock Lite DAC60 and did a series of heavy mods to it. Coupled with some totl tubes - the sound quality has exceeded my highest expectionations.
If you look at the Monarchy - they keep most of the stock caps from the DAC60. And use the inexpensive (but decent) MKP red's as coupling caps ($20 caps). I went whole hog - for couplers went for the totl Mundorf Supreme Silver/Gold/Oil caps ($200). But that was just the beginning...
One thing Olsher had incorrect -the tube stage is not a 'tube buffer' but an actual DC heated tube output stage -which is required by an R2R processor. Some designs have a tube 'buffer' after the true opamp SS output stage - not the same. This is a vain attempt to add tube liquidity and tone to the dryer, flatter SS opamp stage.
My DAC60 after mods:
Virtually every cap upgraded - new TXCO .01ppm Vanguard clock, choke PS filter, etc...
http://www.head-fi.org/t/740362/lite-dac60-pcm1704-r2r-tubed-dac-mod-project
Bob, you need to start a side business modding DAC 60's, I know I would order one!
@sheldaze Thanks for sharing, what a fantastic experience it must have been listening to Tyl's incredible setup!!!
The biggest difference in the Yggy and the Antelope is price depending on the version Tyl has. The entry level is priced similarly to the Yggy, but a fully loaded one is pushing $4k.
IMO, there are great Delta Sigma and R2R DACs out there, it's just that the price for sonic greatness is much higher for multi-bit. Especially when one considers the fantastic vintage R2R DACs available.
What's the digital filter in the Monarchy NM24? Or is it NOS (non-oversampling)?
As a 16 bit R2R DAC is able to generate 65536 different static voltages, and a single switch can only generate 2 different voltages (hi and low), a high switching frequency (usually in the range of a couple of MegaHertz, and achieved through oversampling) is necessary for proper operation and thus, much noise will be produced by the switching process in a sigma-delta converter.
In fact, for any practical application, the noise-level is much higher than the signal that is to be reproduced.
Therefore, this inacceptable high noise-level is shaped into higher-frequencies, as it is believed that high-frequency noise is outside the human listening range and will not degrade sound quality.
As a side effect of this high-order noise-shaping even higher noise levels are generated, residing in the high-frequency region.
To our surprise, in the technical specification of those sigma-delta DACs very low noise-levels are mentioned, and by reading the data-sheets, one could have the illusion, that a decent sound quality would be attainable by such a device.
In fact, the total noise-output is never stated in the data-sheets, and measurements only mention in-band-noise up to 20kHz, suggesting that higher frequency noise has no effect on fidelity.
Today in electronics everything is made small, and as a consequence, compromises must be made to make everything fit in a small package, and run off one power rail.
Delta Sigma DACs all have internal op-amps to provide a voltage output.
Op amps are not evil, however there are good sounding op-amps and average sounding ones. Good ones cost more than most delta sigma DAC chips themselves. One of the problems with most delta sigma designs, is that the on board op-amp is not of the best quality. There is no option to take the current output from the chip. Hence we are stuck with the voltage output and consequently, the "sound' of the op amp, that the manufacturer gives us.
The reason delta sigma was developed was to get the chip size smaller and reduce manufacturing costs. From what I can tell, it is not in any way shape or form to obtain better sound.
If the object was to obtain better sound then the manufacturers would improve laser trimming of the R2R ladder network, however this costs a lot of money, and the chips stay big! However the PCM1704 is an exception to this rule being a surface mount 24bit 96khz R2R chip.
But yes with enough design genius and money - a Multi-Bit S-D can sound very good indeed!
Then why not just stick to true R2R in the first place? Why try to "reinventing the wheel"/Rely on design genius's guesswork with Sigma Delta?
Bob, you need to start a side business modding DAC 60's, I know I would order one!
Then why not just stick to true R2R in the first place? Why try to "reinventing the wheel"/Rely on design genius's guesswork with Sigma Delta?
Then why not just stick to true R2R in the first place? Why try to "reinventing the wheel"/Rely on design genius's guesswork with Sigma Delta?
Because small time shop lack the expertise to design a DAC chip.
Point debunked:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/739309/visit-to-the-schiit-box-schiit-factory-tour
http://schiit.com/products/yggdrasil
Point debunked:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/739309/visit-to-the-schiit-box-schiit-factory-tour
http://schiit.com/products/yggdrasil
That's not a custom DAC chip, that's off the shelf. Worse, it's glitchy for audio applications as it's not designed for audio.
More example:
Totaldac:
A new company building is ready, 60m2 with no parallel wall, and 2.5m to 5m height
http://www.totaldac.com/
I'm not into the Yggdrasil personally because of the "burn-in" time. Me and a few other local people have said it's a poor design choice to have to wait a freaking week for your DAC to sound good.
I'll wait for gen 2 for the time being.