[Lohb]

   
Only the PCM63 & PCM65 chips are better. Which are even older & only available in vintage equipment?

PCM63 pulled from old DAC units, can be found in new equipment such as Lite Audio/Teradak etc

 

[erin]

Erin - Thanks for your thoughts! Regarding the Lite DACs, were you referring to the DAC68 or the DAC60? From the data pages I can find the DAC68 uses a AD1853 while the DAC60 is PCM1704.

 


Its the light dac 60 I'm talking about my friend. Sorry for the typo.

 

[erin]

Well, agree that it doesn't sound forward. But it doesn't sound backward either. On he rest of your characterisation, I couldn't disagree more. 
 
I have no experience with the DAC-68, so cannot comment other than to say a) it's a Delta Sigma DAC, b) it uses JFET in the first part of its output stage and c) the tubes are only there as a buffer to add to the sound. Maybe you like the sound of Delta Sigma and tube buffers. Not me, though. I do like properly designed tube output stages though, or class A solid-state, but for seemingly the opposite reasons to you - which is totally cool.
 

I also disagree with a lot of his rankings, but I didn't buy based on his opinion, and nor does it mean his reviews lack value. The points made about payment for services are not unusual, but notoriously difficult to prove (or show causality) with any reviewer. Using critical thinking is always good, however.

 


I am sorry I was discussing the dac60 with pcm1704. The design is rather irrelevant if it sounds great which it does. Great design and poor subjective sound isn't what I'm after. No I don't particularly like delta sigma sound. However I don't mind the intermediate hybrid r2r chips like lc7880. Some deltas can sound ok if not ab-ing them against an r2r.

If a blog has ads - its monetised. If money is involved then impartiality is compromised, and people choose to use different language than they may otherwise have used to describe something. Sure we all know the sound is subjective. But I rather prefer reviewers to say "I didn't like it" than scrounge to say something nice to say. Someone who likes everything in its own way is being far too nice. In this hobby where we spend our hard earned money we need reviewers who are harsh to help others avoid mistakes.

All dacs except NOS dacs have a flat frequent response. So I have no time for flat, grainy, digital, undynamic, polite or boring sound. Neither should anyone else. So I have no time for polite reviews which seek to offend no one and inform no one.

 

[jusbe]

I am sorry I was discussing the dac60 with pcm1704. The design is rather irrelevant if it sounds great which it does. Great design and poor subjective sound isn't what I'm after. No I don't particularly like delta sigma sound. However I don't mind the intermediate hybrid r2r chips like lc7880. Some deltas can sound ok if not ab-ing them against an r2r.

If a blog has ads - its monetised. If money is involved then impartiality is compromised, and people choose to use different language than they may otherwise have used to describe something. Sure we all know the sound is subjective. But I rather prefer reviewers to say "I didn't like it" than scrounge to say something nice to say. Someone who likes everything in its own way is being far too nice. In this hobby where we spend our hard earned money we need reviewers who are harsh to help others avoid mistakes.

 
Well, reviews are good for awareness-raising, if nothing else. I wouldn't begrudge anyone their method for making their living. And then there are always magazines like Hifi Critic, which offer no ads but a subscription model, if that's our thing.
 
But back on topic - I think it is important to remember that the folks who made the Lite DAC 83 also made the Lite DAC 60. So one shouldn't be surprised to find the voicing to be in the same vein. The DAC 60 is a bargain. But the 83 also sounds vibrant, tonally saturated, hugely dynamic and tremendously authoritative in my system. I can't speak for anyone else.
 

All dacs except NOS dacs have a flat frequent response. So I have no time for flat, grainy, digital, undynamic, polite or boring sound. Neither should anyone else. So I have no time for polite reviews which seek to offend no one and inform no one.

 
I find such an observation too sweeping, and lacking in evidence. There are certainly some great NOS DACs around. But there are some great non-NOS ones too, including vintage ones. I have an affinity for NOS DACs, and used to use a TwinDAC Plus, at one point (from Holland). I am keeping an eye on AN Kits for their level 5 DAC, which should be around shortly. (This DAC may also be able to use the Soekris DAC at its heart, in place of the AD one, I've heard - that would be something). But I can tell you that, on musical grounds, properly designed 1704 DACs are every bit as satisfying, in the right system.
 
Hopefully this thread will continue to explore the outer reaches of R-2R, in all its forms.

 

[astrostar59]

All dacs except NOS dacs have a flat frequent response. So I have no time for flat, grainy, digital, undynamic, polite or boring sound. Neither should anyone else. So I have no time for polite reviews which seek to offend no one and inform no one.

Ehhh? What rubbish is this??
 
 
If you are saying all R-2R have a rolled off response, that may be partly true as regards the upper treble limits. Though well implemented designs get around that. I think the inverse is true hear, many DS designs have an emphasises mid to upper treble energy that is full of sibilance and ugly edge. It sounds too hi-fi. Best way to test that is play it real loud. I bet many tracks you are rushing for the volume.
 
Try the same with a good R-2R and it stays on - loud and enjoyable.
 
The DS camp have to cling onto technical readouts and 'amazing' signal to noise ratios. The sound however doesn't bear fruit....
 
I read someone saying the Audio Note kit 5.1 is out soon. I heard that somewhere as well. It could prove to be a monster DAC killer, the photos I have seen look incredible. I think the price is real world as well, not Audio Note UK DAC 5 prices of over 30K US. I have the 4.1 and it is amazing, truly incredible sound.

 

[erin]

The fact that NOS dacs don't have a flat response should not be debated. Its a fact.the only way around it is designing an output stage with a shelf filter to keep the very highs equal to other frequencies. Still doesn't avoid the issue of aliasing! Buy you can avoid both issues by playing them at higher sample rates. Eg 176.4khz etc.

If its an oversampling dac you can take it as gospel it has a flat frequency response.

I have used nos dacs for around 10 years. I have no problem with them. I've got two in my house right now.
Pointing out some facts wasn't criticizing them.

Flat frequency response is no guarantee of enjoyable sound. In room, its unlikely passive speakers have a flat response anyway. Its a fact. Not criticism. I use passive speakers and no eq.

So have you heard a dac 60?
.

 

[erin]

"what rubbish is this" not rubbish. Nos Dacs have many technical faults. But sound good to me. So what?
 
I almost exclusively use r2r nos dacs. Why are you arguing with the converted?
delta sigma = cheap nasty ****. Yes I know! I've been saying it for years!
 
but this doesn't mean I have to like every implementation of r2r dacs ever made. Nor do I hate every delta sigma. I've heard one recently that provides a wonderful rendition of solo piano music. Its cleanliness in the top end cannot be matched by any NOS dac. Aliasing buggers up the top end. I haven't played the same piece with upsampling on the nos dacs yet. Perhaps they will sound better?
might go try that now

 

[jusbe]

  Ehhh? What rubbish is this??
 
 
If you are saying all R-2R have a rolled off response, that may be partly true as regards the upper treble limits. Though well implemented designs get around that. I think the inverse is true hear, many DS designs have an emphasises mid to upper treble energy that is full of sibilance and ugly edge. It sounds too hi-fi. Best way to test that is play it real loud. I bet many tracks you are rushing for the volume.
 
Try the same with a good R-2R and it stays on - loud and enjoyable.
 
The DS camp have to cling onto technical readouts and 'amazing' signal to noise ratios. The sound however doesn't bear fruit....
 
I read someone saying the Audio Note kit 5.1 is out soon. I heard that somewhere as well. It could prove to be a monster DAC killer, the photos I have seen look incredible. I think the price is real world as well, not Audio Note UK DAC 5 prices of over 30K US. I have the 4.1 and it is amazing, truly incredible sound.

Hi, the photos I have seen look also look intriguing. Lots of iron. Ironically, I think the DAC may now be the constraint in the design. I'm hoping that the overall ANKits DAC platform will - with a few adjustments - accommodate new generation DACs like the Soekris, or Metrum's Transient module, and so on.

 

[astrostar59]

That is possible. My issue with ladder style (multi resistor) DAC architect, is the need to have extremely accurate values - aerospace standard, or the SQ suffers. The push for that type of digital board design is to handle higher resolution data at bit-perfect rates. It is a distraction IMO, as higher resolution music files were / are with DS. I have trouble finding any genuine files (many are Redbook up sampled) of popular music. I would rather have a simpler straight through conversion, and get closer to Redbook at 44.1.
 
The Pavane for example is a great DAC. I have heard the Hex and it was good, nothing special. IMO the weakness of those designs is the lack of tubes in the output, and tubed regulated power supply. That makes a huge difference (good) to the sound out of the unit.

 

[rgs9200m]

The Cambridge 752BD bluray player has Wolfson DACs and sounds very fine to me, somehow significantly more refined and musical than Sabre DACs. But you never hear much about these, especially in the popular DACs you read about here in head-fi.
Is the Wolfson a sleeper off-the-shelf DAC that's under the radar and does anyone have impressions? Do any table-top-size (smaller profile size) DACs for headphone use have these? It's not a rolled off or undetailed sound, in fact it is
just as detailed and extended in the bass and highs as the Sabre in the Oppo as I hear it, but more natural.

 

[BucketInABucket]

  The Cambridge 752BD bluray player has Wolfson DACs and sounds very fine to me, somehow significantly more refined and musical than Sabre DACs. But you never hear much about these, especially in the popular DACs you read about here in head-fi.
Is the Wolfson a sleeper off-the-shelf DAC that's under the radar and does anyone have impressions? Do any table-top-size (smaller profile size) DACs for headphone use have these? It's not a rolled off or undetailed sound, in fact it is
just as detailed and extended in the bass and highs as the Sabre in the Oppo as I hear it, but more natural.

I've always loved wolfson implementations - it was the reason I chose the DX50 over the DX90 - and I think that it's an underrated chip probably because it's not super expensive.

 

[Wildcatsare1]

I also prefer the Wolfson DAC Chips sonically to Sabre, more musical IMO.

 

[stuartmc]

I also prefer the Wolfson DAC Chips sonically to Sabre, more musical IMO.

I too have a Wolfson in the form of my Rega Apollo R. I did a shootout between the Rega, the Aune S16, which uses the top AKM chip and a Gustard X12 dac which uses a single Sabre chip.  To my ears, the Gustard application was clearly the best and every bit as smooth and "musical" as the Wolfson.  After doing a lot of reading on the subject, including a lot of ESS's material meant for engineers, I came to the conclusion that the implementation of the Sabre chip is hyper-critical- much more so then the Wolfson and AKM offerings.  Power supply, ground plane, buffering, on and on....the ESS white papers make it clear that if you don't get all these things right in your application of their chip, the end result, in sound quality, is really going to suffer.  I think the very high resolution of the Sabre chip is going to multiply the problems.

 

[x RELIC x]

Agree, Sabre has the potential to sound very good but if not handled with expertise it sounds pretty bad musically.

The Wolfson chips are well regarded all over Head Fi-dom, just look at the latest from ALO....... The Continental Dual Mono tube amp/DAC. Vinne Rossi and Ken wouldn't have chosen the Wolfson DAC if it wasn't up to musical snuff. Pretty much everyone agrees it's awesome, mind you need to add a grain of tube salt in there.

 

[rgs9200m]

I've been listening to the CA 752 player with HD800s, Grado GS1Kes, and Oppo PM1s, and jeepers creepers, it's hard for me to believe this is an 800-buck player. It's soooo smooth but with nice impact and speed and even a good degree of plankton as they say. 
I need to try a BluRay music disc in it (I don't have any). There's a new Beatles 1 BluRay I saw advertised for release in about a month that looks interesting.