Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About zenelectro

  • Rank

Profile Fields

  • Location
  • Country
  1. Non upsampling DAC experience

    Charles and I, years ago had a pretty good dialog on a designer to designer basis. If he really felt the 1704 was better, he would have said so. A very straight shooter sometimes to a fault. These were private discussions not public forum banter. T
  2. Non upsampling DAC experience

    Not according to Charlie. We had quite a few conversations about various DAC designs and he clearly preferred the 1794 and obviously more recently the Sabre. Their implementation of Sabre is a *long way from the usual.
  3. Non upsampling DAC experience

    I'm not sure. I believe they had a proto silicon fab and were testing... who knows, maybe the projected costs were too high and they couldn't see a market. I think companies like ESS and AKM make their real money from the technology filter down products that are used in mobile phones etc. As they say - That's the way the cookie crumbles! Doesn't particularly worry me - as you prolly guessed, I don't have DS DAC phobia T
  4. Non upsampling DAC experience

    Further to my last post, the true MB DAC I (and many others) were waiting for was the Arda AT1401. This was going to be the next generation of MB DAC with superior speed, DR and distortion to 1704 also fully bal architecture. Unfortunately never happened. T
  5. Non upsampling DAC experience

    George, Thanks for the vote of support - LoL I know and have personally spoken with a few manufacturers on this. As one example, Charles Hansen (RIP) of Ayre Acoustics preferred the 1794 which they used (for a while). However their implementation was far from usual. Soulution use parallel 1794's in what many believe is possible the best DAC currently available. The big issue with DS DAC's is implementation. Of course it's far easier for the average DIY'er to get better results with a 1704, most just don't have the skills / knowledge to extract the absolute best from DS DAC's. I'm not saying that the 1704 is a bad DAC, far from it, some of the best sound I've had here was with 1704. What I am saying is that you can get similar results with some DS DAC's but it is not as easy. Everything must be attended to with care and design excellence. There are many reasons the chip makers went to DS. Yes cost was one however they do base their performance criteria on measurements. DS have higher measured performance WRT distortion and dynamic range. I believe there has in recent years been a lot of work on subjective performance and identifying sonic mechanisms that are difficult to identify with usual measurements. T
  6. Non upsampling DAC experience

    George... M.G. carefully auditioned both ADC and DAC against Model II. He preferred the Forssell - it's a pretty simple equation. He's a professional Mastering Engineer. He doesn't give a crap about the technology in the box, just what sounds best. I know and have met Fred Forssell. He's a very good designer and a great guy. Lot's of manufacturers dumped the 1704 for the 1794 who could have used either. It's more than just the DAC technology. T
  7. Non upsampling DAC experience

    No, very few mastering guys are doing DSD. These are all for PCM release. I think there are a few ADC's these days that are in the same ballpark as Model II and obviously some engineers feel better. T
  8. Non upsampling DAC experience

    I wish I had known you guys were after them. Recently Neil Young actually had an on line auction which included everything from Lionel Model Trains (He owns part of the company), musical instruments and recording gear including at least 2 Pacific Micro Model II HDCD ADDA's. They didn't go for stupid prices either. I remember watching the auction thinking, 'I prolly should buy one of these'... but I'm already building an ADC which should outperform the Model II. There are plenty of mastering guys that have owned Model II and moved on to other pastures. T
  9. Non upsampling DAC experience

    Rob, I think you may be confusing the DA10/11 with his much more expensive Lavry Gold (DA924) which was a discrete multibit ladder DAC. The DA10 uses AD1955 delta sigma dac. There was a lot of conjecture (to say the least) WRT whether he used an ASRC .. http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1027 Light reading LoL T
  10. Non upsampling DAC experience

    Reference Recordings used Pacific Microsonics Model Two HDCD AD (DA) converters of which Prof KJ was the primary designer. Years ago I had the opportunity to listen to one at a friends mastering studio. They are not made anymore but still command pretty decent money on the 2nd hand market. Neil Young also owned (and used) these converters.
  11. Non upsampling DAC experience

    Rob , The Lavry DA10 is an upsampling DAC. I can't remembre what DAC chip they use but but is most certainly a Delta Sigma chip. cheers T
  12. Marantz cd94 mk2

    As stated, most people run I2S between CD94 (used as transport) and DAC. Even in a one box player it's worth reclocking the I2S before it enters the DAC chip(s). The clocks timing gets pretty corrupted before it reaches the DAC. T
  13. Marantz cd94 mk2

    George, If the transport is running spdif OP to DAC yes, you are correct. However most of these CD94's -> KDACs are running I2S to DAC so they are in fact synced. And the last few zenclocks I installed had an I2S reclocking / line driver that re aligned I2S signals directly to clock. That's synced!
  14. NEW: Schiit Stereo/Mono Amp - Vidar

    George, you can't really apply power supply generalizations to all amps as different topologies have varying power supply rejection. Having said that, this is a current feedback amp which generally have fairly poor PS rejection as such usually have a separate regulated front end (voltage stage). There's been a lot of discussion WRT voltage FB versus current FB amps on various forums. The general consensus is that CFB amps usually sound very good if designed well, although they also usually make more distortion than VFB amps but also they usually have a flatter distortion curve versus frequency - which IMO is a good thing for an amp. The reason for this is they have wider BW but less loop gain. I really like CFB amps for various reasons. I've found them to be very stable into difficult loads (when properly compensated) and they also remain very linear up to quite high frequencies. I'm currently just adding finishing touches to a fully balanced (bridged) CFB (Bipolar) amp that I'm building for my own use. So far it is showing the flattest distortion vs freq of any amp I have built and especially when driving loads of 1 ohm or so. For example it will drive a few hundred watts into 0.5 ohm at 100kHz and still have very low distortion. That's a real torture test for a power amp. Z.
  15. ML5

    To add to above importantly it has much lower VC inductance than Peerless, 0.2mH versus 1.4mH . They've obviously paid a lot of attention to the motor design. The real benefit of this is lower inductance modulation over the travel of driver. This inductance modulation plays havoc with your xover. Should be very clean in midrange and upper MR. People usually look at cone weight etc as indication of clean extended response but VC inductance is a real factor. Keep us posted Mike. - So, how do you get real bass out of such a small driver - I wonder what it's power handling is compared to Peerless.