Jump to content

HarbethRob

Non upsampling DAC experience

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, georgehifi said:

 

Isn't it funny, the guy that did this comparison, is the Australian distributor of Forrsell!  And it uses the cheaper to produce PCM1794 hybrid multibit/Delta Sigma, which took over from the PCM1704 Multibit which Burr Brown stopped making because of high cost of manufacture with laser trimming of all the R2R resistors inside.  

 

Cheers George 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, zenelectro said:

Lot's of manufacturers dumped

Got that wrong, they didn't "dump" they were forced. In the end they couldn't get the 1704 from Texas Instruments (T.I.). unless they were long term large users customers. Then when supply ran out they opted for the alternative the T.I. replacement and cheaper to produce 1794, which wasn't as good. as we have two identical Shanling units save for one having 4 x 1704 and the other with 2 x 1794 (as they are duals) and guess which sounds better, yes the 1704. And the reason above is the same why Shanling had to revert to the 1794 Which the Forrsell uses..

And that's why many dacs today with 1704's in them are commanding higher and higher prices, even non working ones, to pull the 1704's out of, as they get big prices for them. The best production CDP I've heard so far is the Linn CD12 which I have here which uses 4 x PCM1704's.

 

Any one here who wishes to find out which CDP's or DAC's used the magic PCM1704's so they can buy s/h ones, just needs to look at this massive list (takes a while to load so be patient.) And close down any pop ups.

 http://vasiltech.narod.ru/CD-Player-DAC-Transport.htm

 

Cheers George   

Edited by georgehifi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the interesting discussion. The depth of technical knowledge from members on this forum is really impressive. It may be that the secret really does lie largely in implementation rather than technical specifications. It is quite hard to find out what Dan's approach is as it is all proprietary. However, here is an article which suggests (if I am reading it correctly!) that he believes that oversampling is an inherent part of any modern design.

 

lavry-sampling-oversampling-imaging-alia

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, georgehifi said:

Got that wrong, they didn't "dump" they were forced. In the end they couldn't get the 1704 from Texas Instruments (T.I.). unless they were long term large users customers. 

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

 

5 hours ago, georgehifi said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zenelectro said:

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

What a shame

why didnt it happen?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


23 minutes ago, zenelectro said:

Ayre Acoustics preferred the 1794

because they couldn't get the 1704 anymore, their best sounding dacs were the 1704 models (the D1 player being one of the best.) highly sought after now that Charlie has passed away RIP

23 minutes ago, zenelectro said:

There are many reasons the chip makers went to DS. Yes cost was one however they do base their performance criteria on measurements

lack of availability of the 1704, and cost.

 

Cheers George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kab said:

What a shame

why didnt it happen?

 

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   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, georgehifi said:

because they couldn't get the 1704 anymore, their best sounding dacs were the 1704 models (the D1 player being one of the best.) highly sought after now that Charlie has passed away RIP

lack of availability of the 1704, and cost.

 

Cheers George

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.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't listen to who's making it as they always go with what they can get in reliable supply and for the $$$ it costs, listen to the end users.

Has anyone ever heard a manufacture state his new product doesn't sound as good as the old one, especially if the old one can't be made anymore. 

 

Cheers George

Edited by georgehifi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, georgehifi said:

Don't listen to who's making it as they always go with what they can get in reliable supply and for the $$$ it costs, listen to the end users.

Has anyone ever heard a manufacture state his new product doesn't sound as good as the old one, especially if the old one can't be made anymore. 

 

Cheers George

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love R2R DACs. I lived with non oversampling for years. I now cannot stand to listen to it. I now use an R2R DAC with oversampling.

 

Anyone with a non oversampling DAC can use a PC to upsample the music. This will stop the high frequency roll off from being so audible. Even upsampling to 48Khz makes an improvement. 88.2Khz better. But, I suppose id probably rather listen to a non oversampling R2R DAC than a delta sigma - generally speaking.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


On 13/1/2018 at 6:50 AM, georgehifi said:

The best PCM recordings I've heard have been the Prof K. Johnson's "Reference Recording"  done 24/96 and with HDCD

Mind blowingly good with a 24bit dac that's R2R Multibit and has HDCD. But average with Delta Sigma based dacs.

https://referencerecordings.com/

 

Cheers George 

George spot on again @gonefishing999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ghost4man  I agree PCM are amazing with NOS Holo Dac L1 I have a RR download DR of 14.

Sheffield Lab are the most life like I have heard Harry James and his Big Band  have DR of 18-19

and are so holographic .

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It never ceases to amaze me that every manufacturer uses their own "patented" technology and yet when it comes down to it, every manufacturer thinks they know best and would never copy someone else's approach (except perhaps all the cheap Chinese clones but I'm not sure patents bother them.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×