[prot]

That's the current "hot" D-S chip, no?
Thanks for the post.

Yes.
Except the pcm1704 is an r2r chip ... as the quoted text also says ... and totally "cold" since it is not produced anymore.

 

[jusbe]

That's the current "hot" D-S chip, no?
Thanks for the post.

Until recently (or maybe even now), it so happened to be one of the few still available new. We've just been lucky that it also happens to be one of the best of an excellent series of R2R DACs, with excellent lineage.
 
Philips had moved on a while ago, from their TDA series. Not sure what Analog Devices is doing, or whether there AD1865 R2R DAC is still available new.

 

[doctorjazz]

Oops, my bad (told you I need Cliff notes )

 

[x RELIC x]

Yes.
Except the pcm1704 is an r2r chip ... as the quoted text also says ... and totally "cold" since it is not produced anymore.

I was under the impression that they stopped production of the PCM1704 in 2010 but resurected it in limited quantities due to demand. AFAIK it's still being made.

 

[jusbe]

If that's true, we're really lucky. Part of me is tempted to buy another DAC-83 and store it.

 

[Articnoise]

There are more ways than one to skin a cat and obviously some prefer the sound of tubes, others horn speakers another group swear by the sound of electrostatic speakers (I sure did) while some like the character of vinyl (guilty). The same broader sound character between R2R and delta sigma modulation has been quite obvious in the past. I really didn’t like the 1 bit sound in the past. Today not many of the “better” DS DACs use true 1 bit and the implanted filters and instead use hybrids DAC chips and dedicated digital filters that they program their self just like in R2R. Some DS DACs don’t even use op-amps or negative feedback anymore.

 

Do I mean by this that the typical DS or R2R sound are completely gone? Maybe not entirely, but just like with SS and tube amps characteristics some tubes amps can sound kind like SS and some SS amps like tubes, some cone speakers is IMO practically as transparence as e-stat and so on. The difference is bigger in the group that between the groups, sort of speak.

 

I may be blest because I have found both horn, e-stats, planer and conversely speakers that I really liked and the same with different amps (class A, A/B, tubes, SS, OTL etc.). Nowadays I can say the same for “high end” DACs, maybe not yet for budget and midrange priced ones *.

 

 

* My experience with different DACs, at least at home, is somehow limited in number (maybe 15 over 25 years), but that is also true for speakers, turntables and amp types. Some more general conclusions can also be made by demoing at friends and stores, especially if one are familiar with their rooms and other gear. 

 

[x RELIC x]

There are more ways than one to skin a cat and obviously some prefer the sound of tubes, others horn speakers another group swear by the sound of electrostatic speakers (I sure did) while some like the character of vinyl (guilty). The same broader sound character between R2R and delta sigma modulation has been quite obvious in the past. I really didn’t like the 1 bit sound in the past. Today not many of the “better” DS DACs use true 1 bit and the implanted filters and instead use hybrids DAC chips and dedicated digital filters that they program their self just like in R2R. Some DS DACs don’t even use op-amps or negative feedback anymore.



 



Do I mean by this that the typical DS or R2R sound are completely gone? Maybe not entirely, but just like with SS and tube amps characteristics some tubes amps can sound kind like SS and some SS amps like tubes, some cone speakers is IMO practically as transparence as e-stat and so on. The difference is bigger in the group that between the groups, sort of speak.



 



I may be blest because I have found both horn, e-stats, planer and conversely speakers that I really liked and the same with different amps (class A, A/B, tubes, SS, OTL etc.). Nowadays I can say the same for “high end” DACs, maybe not yet for budget and midrange priced ones *.



 



 



* My experience with different DACs, at least at home, is somehow limited in number (maybe 15 over 25 years), but that is also true for speakers, turntables and amp types. Some more general conclusions can also be made by demoing at friends and stores, especially if one are familiar with their rooms and other gear. 

I'd agree with this on a macro level. The overall sound differences I've heard between the two implementations is more on the low level audio cues, the subtleties that are difficult to pinpoint but are clearly heard. It reminds me of realistic CG avatars vs real actors (like in The Matrix film trilogy). We've become very good at capturing likenesses in CG but they never really feel the same as the real actor. The subtleties and nuances are missing that our brain recognizes as the real thing which we obviously prefer. D-S is like a CG avatar and R-2R is like the real actor to me, at least from what I've heard in a comparable price range.

 

[rb2013]

I was under the impression that they stopped production of the PCM1704 in 2010 but resurected it in limited quantities due to demand. AFAIK it's still being made.

I don't think they ever fully went out of production - TI was considering it (at least from the Golden Ear Award blurb on the Monarchy NM22 in Absolute Sound).
 
 
Both the PCM1704 and the DF1704 are available at Digikey (they don't sell used stuff)
http://www.digikey.com/product-search/en/integrated-circuits-ics/data-acquisition-digital-to-analog-converters-dac/2556292?k=pcm1704
http://www.digikey.com/product-search/en/integrated-circuits-ics/linear-audio-special-purpose/2556582?k=pcm1704
 
Not cheap though - UK's are like $70 (and you need two, at least) and the DF's $36.
 
Makes the complete Lite DAC60 look like a bargain for $600.  That's why I chose it to mod.
 
Here is a link to the TI/BB pcm1704 datasheet: http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm1704.pdf

 

[wahsmoh]

Where has this thread been all my life??? How come no one invited me to join the party? I have spent the half year looking for decent old gear out there.
 
I have so far collected a Theta DS Pro Progeny v. A and an EAD CD-1000 Series III.
 
The Theta Progeny v. A has : PCM67P-K, DSP56001 (Theta/Moffatt filter)


 
EAD has : 2xPCM63P-K, PMD100 HDCD decoder/filter


( I unpacked it and listened to it right away hehe)
 
I will follow with an in depth comparison between the two but here are my brief impressions.
 
Theta: Has the immense soundstage, very dynamic, bass and mid has strong attack, mids are rich and powerful, bass may be slightly bloated but extends deep, highs can give me mixed feelings (maybe they are accurate to the recording? I have heard both clarity and veiled cymbal rides)
 
EAD: Takes a more defined and neutral approach, soundstage sounds about 1/6 less spacious as the Theta (maybe I'm pulling strings), mids are wonderful, highs seem more defined, bass doesn't hit as hard as the Theta when listening to hip hop but it is quality.
 
Anyways both are very non-fatiguing and sound like analog vinyl without the pops and hisses.
I will do a track by track review coming up soon when I get this school work out of the way.

 

[Articnoise]

I'd agree with this on a macro level. The overall sound differences I've heard between the two implementations is more on the low level audio cues, the subtleties that are difficult to pinpoint but are clearly heard. It reminds me of realistic CG avatars vs real actors (like in The Matrix film trilogy). We've become very good at capturing likenesses in CG but they never really feel the same as the real actor. The subtleties and nuances are missing that our brain recognizes as the real thing which we obviously prefer. D-S is like a CG avatar and R-2R is like the real actor to me, at least from what I've heard in a comparable price range.

 

To me the problem with 1 bit DS DACs (and what R2R and vinyl does so much better) has always been the lack of weight and density to the tones in the upper mids and the treble stringent/digital artifacts. Not the micro details. IME some very good SD DACs that are based on hybrids SD DAC chips and good digital filters etc does the density to tones and the treble really good nowadays. Really not trying to convert anyone to SD just share my personal experience on the topic, as I thought the same about SD before and can relate. I’m absolutely for dusting of good all vintage R2R.

 

I don’t say that SD is better per se and I even think that “most” R2R DACs, everything else equal, probably still has a small upper hand then it comes to aspects like tone density and smooth non glary treble, but to me vinyl is king on this aspects. Well implanted SD may on the other hand have a bit better dynamic and an overall clear sound than “most” R2R, I have heard.  

 

[rb2013]

   

To me the problem with 1 bit DS DACs (and what R2R and vinyl does so much better) has always been the lack of weight and density to the tones in the upper mids and the treble stringent/digital artifacts. Not the micro details. IME some very good SD DACs that are based on hybrids SD DAC chips and good digital filters etc does the density to tones and the treble really good nowadays. Really not trying to convert anyone to SD just share my personal experience on the topic, as I thought the same about SD before and can relate. I’m absolutely for dusting of good all vintage R2R.

 

I don’t say that SD is better per se and I even think that “most” R2R DACs, everything else equal, probably still has a small upper hand then it comes to aspects like tone density and smooth non glary treble, but to me vinyl is king on this aspects. Well implanted SD may on the other hand have a bit better dynamic and an overall clear sound than “most” R2R, I have heard.  

+1  I have both a totl  D-S APL (using 6 AKM 32-bit multi-segment DACs per channel - 12 in total) and a heavily mod Lite DAC60 (pr of PCM1704UK).  They're both excellent - the APL (at 5X the cost) a little quicker, the DAC60 creamier tone.  But that's half of the equation.  Besides the processing stage  - the output stage can make a huge difference - and each is tube based.  And I think this is critical to their success.  Tube outputs present not only with a more natural, graceful toneality, but have a more realistic sound stage.  The musical sources radiating out as 3D point sources in the sound field vs flattish staggered 2D cardboard cutouts.
 
I have noticed this with amps as well - especially the hybrid kind.  Even in phono pre's -   the tube ones with top NOS tubes just gave a more realistic pleasing effect.  This is with top MC cartridges like the Benz Ebony LP and Dynavector XV1S.  And especially with my current MM Ortofon 2M Black.
 
So after going through a dozen SS DACs - never finding long term satisfaction - these tube dacs have hit the mark.  Once you try tubes you'll never go back.

 

[rb2013]

Speaking of tube DACs - the folks at Lite do some amazing work.  At very reasonable cost:
 
The Lite DAC60 for one and this DAC68
 
Although using a multi-segment D-S DAC AD1853
 
It has a fully balanced tube output stage!  For $800 shipped
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lite-DAC-68-Full-Balanced-Hi-Fi-D-A-Convertor-Tube-Output-Brand-New-/361189964170?hash=item541899798a

 

[Articnoise]

 
+1  I have both a totl  D-S APL (using 6 AKM 32-bit multi-segment DACs per channel - 12 in total) and a heavily mod Lite DAC60 (pr of PCM1704UK).  They're both excellent - the APL (at 5X the cost) a little quicker, the DAC60 creamier tone.  But that's half of the equation.  Besides the processing stage  - the output stage can make a huge difference - and each is tube based.  And I think this is critical to their success.  Tube outputs present not only with a more natural, graceful toneality, but have a more realistic sound stage.  The musical sources radiating out as 3D point sources in the sound field vs flattish staggered 2D cardboard cutouts.
 
I have noticed this with amps as well - especially the hybrid kind.  Even in phono pre's -   the tube ones with top NOS tubes just gave a more realistic pleasing effect.  This is with top MC cartridges like the Benz Ebony LP and Dynavector XV1S.  And especially with my current MM Ortofon 2M Black.
 
So after going through a dozen SS DACs - never finding long term satisfaction - these tube dacs have hit the mark.  Once you try tubes you'll never go back.

 

Yes I know what you mean I have an SD tube DAC with NOS Cca and Amperex tubes, very musical and natural tonality. To me it produce a sound that is highly realistic and lifelike in an almost analog manner. The heights is far far away from sounding digital or harsh and still have such a nice extended and sparkling treble. Other difference to the Master 7 with Offramp 5 HDMI is the increased clarity, 3D, better bass, livelier sound and lastly it’s much more open sound. 

 

[rb2013]

   

Yes I know what you mean I have an SD tube DAC with NOS Cca and Amperex tubes, very musical and natural tonality. To me it produce a sound that is highly realistic and lifelike in an almost analog manner. The heights is far far away from sounding digital or harsh and still have such a nice extended and sparkling treble. Other difference to the Master 7 with Offramp 5 HDMI is the increased clarity, 3D, better bass, livelier sound and lastly it’s much more open sound.

Nice!

 

[evillamer]

 
Most Modern PCM DACs employ 8 times oversampling(352.8KHz or 384KHz), so the pulse response will be better than the above chart.