DAC Shootout

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 48367 times.

bhobba

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1119
DAC Shootout
« on: 8 Aug 2010, 02:56 am »
Hi Hugh and All

A DAC shootout is going to be occurring on September 4th on the Gold Coast at Lenehan Audio. People like Joe Rasmussen of JLTI fame are coming and it will have the WFS, the Tranquility, Joes JLTI modded Oppo, Mikes new DAC, and a $6K NOS DAC made here in Aus. It will be done blind and people will be giving rankings on each of the DAC's. If anyone wants to join us drop Mike a line and he will add you to the list. Hope to see you there.

And Hugh if you can have the NAKSA ready we may be able to arrange a listen of that as well.

Thanks
Bill

hybride

Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #1 on: 8 Aug 2010, 08:07 am »
Thats VERY interesting. Last two years i tried a lot of DAC's and build all kind of DAC's to hear there main differences on 16/44.1. Heard the Sabre, Wolffson, PCM63, TDA1543 and TDA1541 and others in several configurations with different output (I/V) circuits. My main question was; which configuration is able to give the most musical performance. So my ears and brains where the only judge. It was an interesting journey and in the end i came to some conclusions. Non oversampling DAC's are winner in the musical area. On one way or the other none of the OS DAC's could reach there level, even not the high-tech SABRE 32 with Lundahl trafo's. Another conclusion was that the noisefloor of the powersupply of the DAC chip is VERY important. In my experience no main Power Supply could beat batterie feeding. Even a single voltage regulator between batterie and DAC had audible effects with some DAC's. There are some more issues. My world changed when i met John Brown from ECdesigns. He became the Hugh Dean in DAC's for me. He invented a non-conventional circuit for the NOS DAC chip TDA1541. Last year i followed all his tweaks and optimisations and i dare to say that this is proberly to most musical DAC ever build. It would be nice to take this DAC in the contest, but then someone should have to buy it at your place. It cost 474 euro, thats something else then 6K  :o       
http://www.ecdesigns.nl/modules/dm1541a
   

bhobba

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1119
Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #2 on: 8 Aug 2010, 09:26 am »
Thats VERY interesting. Last two years i tried a lot of DAC's and build all kind of DAC's to hear there main differences on 16/44.1. Heard the Sabre, Wolffson, PCM63, TDA1543 and TDA1541 and others in several configurations with different output (I/V) circuits. My main question was; which configuration is able to give the most musical performance. So my ears and brains where the only judge. It was an interesting journey and in the end i came to some conclusions. Non oversampling DAC's are winner in the musical area. On one way or the other none of the OS DAC's could reach there level, even not the high-tech SABRE 32 with Lundahl trafo's. Another conclusion was that the noisefloor of the powersupply of the DAC chip is VERY important. In my experience no main Power Supply could beat batterie feeding. Even a single voltage regulator between batterie and DAC had audible effects with some DAC's. There are some more issues. My world changed when i met John Brown from ECdesigns. He became the Hugh Dean in DAC's for me. He invented a non-conventional circuit for the NOS DAC chip TDA1541. Last year i followed all his tweaks and optimisations and i dare to say that this is proberly to most musical DAC ever build. It would be nice to take this DAC in the contest, but then someone should have to buy it at your place. It cost 474 euro, thats something else then 6K  :o       
http://www.ecdesigns.nl/modules/dm1541a

First both myself and dB Audio have reached exactly the same conclusion.  The older DAC's are more fluid, liquid and musical but the newer DAC's such as the ESS have greater detail and slam.  In designing the Tranquility dBAudio had to work hard to get it to have the detail and slam of the ESS.  They say they got close but the ESS still pips it however in musicality etc the Tranquility is better.  Of course there is some personal preference here but the designers of the Tranquility built an ESS dac and preferred the design they settled on. dB Audio will be releasing a high resolution DAC soon and it had the exact opposite problem - detail slam etc was no problem - they had to work hard to get the musicality etc.  They believe they have succeeded but did insist if I wanted one they would send me one to compare with the Tranquility.  Getting both seems a bit like the holy grail.

I would dearly love this DAC in the mix but I already have forked out dosh getting both the WFS and Tranquility in.  If someone else would like to get it in I am sure it would be a worthwhile addition.

Thanks
Bill
« Last Edit: 8 Aug 2010, 09:10 pm by bhobba »

AKSA

Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #3 on: 8 Aug 2010, 12:06 pm »
Bill,

The issue of slam and impact v. musicality and 'roundness' really caught my attention.  I too face this issue in amp design, in short, tubes v. SS. 

It has always seemed to me that the slam and impact of SS goes very nicely with the musicality and roundness of tubes.  It was largely this which prompted me to spend a few years designing amps and preamps which combined these distinguishing hallmarks.

Ain't life strange, Bill?

Still doing logos, sadly.......

Hugh

roscoeiii

Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #4 on: 8 Aug 2010, 02:00 pm »
Based on the recent review in 6moons, you might also want to see if you can bring in a Weiss Minerva/DAC2. Tho I figure we will be reading Srajan's impressions of how it compares to the W4S fairly soon.

gaetan8888

Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #5 on: 8 Aug 2010, 08:17 pm »
Hello

The Tranquility dac are a non-oversampling design, if I remember correctly it use a PCM1704 dac chip.

NOS designs generally do best with simpler music (Jazz, ballads, strings quartets), but tend to obscure inner details in complex (orchestral, heavy rock) music.

The Ecdesigns dac use a linear interpolation by shifting the data of four TDA1541 giving a 4x non-digital oversampling.

OS dac need a very low jitter clock and source and the best filtered power supply, If you lower the jitter in OS dac by changing the on-board xtal near the dac chip by a well filtered low jitter xtal clock chip and moded the power supply for lower noises, you will gain lot of musicality and have the precision of the OS dac.

I have done thoses mods to my Adcom CGD-600 cd player and got an excellent result, that Adcom use a TDA1541A in a OS configuration.

I was tempted by the Twisted Pear Buffalo dac using ESS dac chip but I still hesitate. I will try the PCM1794 (I have some of that chip) in a diy dac and see if it worth the try.

Bye

Gaetan

Jon L

Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #6 on: 8 Aug 2010, 08:26 pm »
www.dbaudiolabs.com/

The Tranquility dac are a non-oversampling design, if I remember correctly it use a PCM1704 dac chip.


How did you know it uses PCM1704, since which chip is used is never revealed in their literature?  Did you actually look inside to confirm?

gaetan8888

Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #7 on: 8 Aug 2010, 08:36 pm »
Hello

I've read it in a post on AudioAsylum, but anyway, there is not lot of dac chip who are use for NOS dac, only R2R type can be use, like the TDA1541, TDA1543, PCM1704, AD1865

All newer dac chips are delta-sigma type, except the PCM 1794 who are delta-sigma/R2R hybrid type.

Bye

Gaetan

bhobba

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1119
Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #8 on: 8 Aug 2010, 09:44 pm »
The Tranquility dac are a non-oversampling design, if I remember correctly it use a PCM1704 dac chip.

The exact DAC the Trainquility uses has never been made public.  However it has been revealed it is not 24 bit so it is not a 1704.

NOS designs generally do best with simpler music (Jazz, ballads, strings quartets), but tend to obscure inner details in complex (orchestral, heavy rock) music.

That's my experience and the experience of others I have spoken to and corresponded with.  The Tranquility guys claim they have largely overcome this using techniques such as short signal paths and litter reduction but is still not as good as the latest chips such as the ESS.  Evidently it is now close, but the ESS has the edge.  That said the claim is when combined with the strengths of NOS overall it beats the ESS.  We will find out.

Thanks
Bill

bhobba

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1119
Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #9 on: 8 Aug 2010, 10:03 pm »
The issue of slam and impact v. musicality and 'roundness' really caught my attention.  I too face this issue in amp design, in short, tubes v. SS.  It has always seemed to me that the slam and impact of SS goes very nicely with the musicality and roundness of tubes.  It was largely this which prompted me to spend a few years designing amps and preamps which combined these distinguishing hallmarks.

Actually I think it is of relevance here.  The Tranquility guys claim one way they overcame the weakness of NOS was using individually matched FET output transistors and not valves which many guys like Mike seem to prefer.

Ain't life strange, Bill? Still doing logos, sadly.......

Take your time Hugh.  Have other amps I can use in the interim.

Thanks
Bill

gaetan8888

Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #10 on: 9 Aug 2010, 12:18 am »
The exact DAC the Trainquility uses has never been made public.  However it has been revealed it is not 24 bit so it is not a 1704.

That's my experience and the experience of others I have spoken to and corresponded with.  The Tranquility guys claim they have largely overcome this using techniques such as short signal paths and litter reduction but is still not as good as the latest chips such as the ESS.  Evidently it is now close, but the ESS has the edge.  That said the claim is when combined with the strengths of NOS overall it beats the ESS.  We will find out.

Thanks
Bill

Hello Bill

About the PCM1704, I readed that in AudioAsylum. But there is only few dac chips who can be use for NOS dac.

A NOS dac will have a lot of HF noise at the sampling frequency, and above. This noise will create IM distortion at audible frequencies. It's the main reason of the lack of precision in complex (orchestral, heavy rock) music.

That mosly why NOS dac need an excellent low pass output filter to cut that hf noise, but that filter will bring phase shift. So maby the Tranquility dac guys did find a another way to get rid of that hf noise.

Bye

Gaetan

Dracule1

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 718
Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #11 on: 9 Aug 2010, 12:50 am »
Gaetan, I have the Tranquility DAC, and it definately does not use the 1704.  I know what is used but out of respect for dB Audio I will let them reveal it when they feel it necessary. I also know the 24 bit chip used in the upcoming hi rez DAC, and I think they made a wise choice.  Also ECdesigns abandoned the multiple DAC chip linear interpolation design long ago.  Now John (ECdesigns) is using a single chip using passive i/v conversion using a custom mobius wound resistor.  After years of working on linear interpolation and multiple types of i/v conversion using tubes and opamps, he abandoned them for the current offering claiming a single chip with simple i/v conversion using SD sound card for storage sounds the best.  I think he tends to exaggerate the sound of his DACs based on his posts, but I will probably get his DAC since I have a Double Crown 1541A chip.

Dracule1

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 718
Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #12 on: 9 Aug 2010, 05:02 am »
It seems like a lot of audiophiles get hung up on the "32 bit" sigma delta DAC chips (ESS, AKM, Wolfson, etc). Problem is these chips including the highly touted ESS chips do not provide more analogue bit resolution than the TDA1541 multibit chip from the 80s.  At least this is my understanding.  Here is a link to a very well written response from a different forum:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/digital/messages/15/153466.html

Well, I''ll just post the god damn thing:

 
"Posted by Thorsten (M) on July 31, 2010 at 05:38:47
In Reply to: RE: Sabre DAC not 32-bit? posted by sheppard on July 27, 2010 at 13:31:52

Hi,
Well, I think we need to define what we mean with "32 Bit DAC" if we want to see if the claims are true or not.

We can interpret it in many ways:

1) A 32-Bit DAC is one that shows 32-Bits equivalent analogue resolution, that is 183dB dynamic range, measured the traditional analogue way. It goes without saying, not only can we not measure such a DAC should it actually exist, but of course no such thing exists nor is it possible, outside a laboratory system suspended in liquid nitrogen and maybe not even then.

2) A 32-Bit DAC is one that uses 32 individual binary weighted bit switches, so it is theoretically capable of producing 2^32 discrete steps, though it's analogue dynamic range is less than the postulated 183dB (or 192dB as some may say). No such thing exists either (yet), but it is at least theoretically possible to make such a device.

3) A 32-Bit DAC is a DAC that accepts a 32-Bit wide data word and outputs whatever real resolution it is capable of, in other words it is marketing number without any appreciable meaning.

It should be added that recent specifications for computer based audio (Intel/M$ HD Audio) call for systems that are able to handle 32 Bit words, simply because this is how computers like to work, they want 8/16/32 Bit words to work with, not 24 Bit. This is the reason for the 32-Bit DAC's now becoming more common.

This has no meaning other than a DAC should accept a 32 Bit word, for compatibility, not that it that actually does anything meaningful with the whole 32 Bit's. In fact, several "32-Bit" DAC's simply take the 32-Bit Data and dither it down to 24-Bit which is then applied to manufacturers 24-bit DAC Core.

However, as it is very easy for marketing departments to point out that "32-Bits are better than 24-Bits (even though under my definition in 1) there is no such thing as a 24 Bit DAC either) just as 24-Bits are better than 16-Bits" and so on, the 32-Bit part has become a major marketing macguffin for DAC (Chip) manufacturers and their customers.

Okay, on to the Sabre (and for that in principle almost all modern DAC's).

In the year of our lord 2010 all but one DAC targeted at audio use a concept that used to be called "hybrid DAC". This means these DAC's combine several bits worth of multibit core with a delta sigma modulator (aka one bit DAC).

The combination is used to achieve the total resolution by using a process called noise shaping from the "real" resolution of the DAC (that is the number of levels that the DAC can directly represent in the analog domain and the additional resolution attained using noise shaping. It is a little difficult to understand and even for those who understand to explain where this extra resolution comes from, but we do not worry ourselves here about details.

The bottom line is that the DAC will have a number analog levels that can be represented directly by 1-Bit and Multibit conversion. The rest has to be produced using noise shaping. The views on noiseshaping vary, my own is negative, where sonics are concerned, compared to having enough real resolution.

Back to the Sabre.

For the "6-Bit DAC" for the Sabre, this is both correct and incorrect.

The Sabre has 2^6 or 64 so called "unitary weighted" or "thermometer code" bit switches. These are able to represent directly 2^6 or 64 individual levels.

Further, the Sabre uses asynchronous sample rate conversion on ALL Input data and converts into a clock rate of 40MHz. If we assume for ease of calculation a 50KHz data sample rate (close enough to to the 44.1KHz used on CD) we can represent as many as 40MHz/50KHz or 800 individual levels using classic pulse width or pulse density modulation.

For ease of calulation I will round up to 1024 levels, which is equivalent to 10 Bit resolution.

This means that the raw resolution build into the ESS DAC is around 16 Bit for single speed (44.1/48KHz) Data, 15 Bit for double speed (88.2/96KHz) and 14 Bit for quad speed (176.4/192KHz) data.

I have to say that this is appreciably more real, raw resolution than most DAC's in the market offer. The ESS Sabre DAC's can actually represent CD Data in the analogue domain with no or very little noiseshaping, which may explain the fact that many find it superior to many other DAC's.

For reference, a highly regarded (by some anyway) 32-Bit DAC by another manufacturer uses a 32 Level (5 Bit) multibit section and 128 Times oversampling at all datarates (7 Bits), thus meaning the actual core of the DAC is able to provide only 12 Bit real resolution without noiseshaping.

Certain others are even more miserly on real resolution, because real resolution costs real money and why bother if you can fake it in the measured performance by agressive use of noise shaping?

It means the ESS DAC relies appreciably less on noise shaping to represent the full needed resolution than most (or at this time perhaps all?) others using the same principle, though it is less than what is attainable using a true multibit DAC. In fact, it is barely able to match the mid 1980's TDA1541 in terms of real (non-noiseshaped) resolution.

For reference, if we combine analogue resolution (24 Binary weighted bits) and the possibility to run at 8 Times oversampling (3 Bits) the Burr Brown PCM1704 (the last true multibit Audio DAC in production) allows us in effect 27 Bit of analogue levels. Sadly this chip is hampered by a SNR/Dynamic range of much less than 120dB, so much of that possible resolution resides below the noisefloor and is of no use. We woudl have to parallel humungous numbers of PCM1704 DAC's to push the noisefloor low enough to make use of the extra bits.

Of course, non of what is written above has any direct relation or mapping onto perceived sound quality. However, a personal observation is that I seem to like DAC's sonics in about the inverse of the amount of noise shaping used. Equally I also know (of) experienced listeners who have a reasonable track record judjing sound quality whose reaction is the opposite (the more noiseshaped the system the better they like it - SACD/DSD being one extreme example).

So the bottom line is - listen for yourself and select what sounds best to you.

Ciao T"



Some may disagree with this guy (like whether noise shaping is a bad or good thing), but he makes a lot of sense to my feeble mind.  I think the only DAC I know that can really approach 24 bit analogue resolution is the MSB Diamond DAC (they claim 27 bit resolution), but this is a true DISCRETE MULTIBIT DAC using resistors used in the aerospace industry instead of silicon. Problem is the Diamond DAC start at $25k.

bhobba

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1119
Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #13 on: 9 Aug 2010, 07:17 am »
It seems like a lot of audiophiles get hung up on the "32 bit" sigma delta DAC chips (ESS, AKM, Wolfson, etc). Problem is these chips including the highly touted ESS chips do not provide more analogue bit resolution than the TDA1541 multibit chip from the 80s.  At least this is my understanding.  Here is a link to a very well written response from a different forum:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/digital/messages/15/153466.html

The issue of the exact resolution of these DAC's is quite interesting at a technical level.  It is true they strictly only have 6 bit resolution but at a very high frequency.  Various tricks are used by preprocessing to give it an effective 32 bit resolution in the audio passband - called various things such as noise shaping or some such.  In effect the truncation of the lower bits adds noise to the signal - the noise shaper shifts that noise outside the audio spectrum.  This is similar to 1 bit dacs that actually have a horrid one bit resolution but it is done at such a high frequency the resolution in the audio passband is very good.  They also use noise shaping.  I don't know if this is a good or bad thing - I presume its good since these guys sound like competent engineers to me.  The true proof of the pudding is in the eating and I can assure you even compared to Mike Lenehan's quite expensive and heavily tweaked pcm1704 DAC the WFS with the ESS Saber 32 bit DAC has the edge in detail.  For example I remember one recording we listened to.  It had this tapping noise.  On the Havana it was quite indistinct but it was heard very clearly on the WFS and nearly as clearly on the 1704.  However the WFS did have a slight sibilance control issue - the 1704 was just about perfect that way.  Headphone guys describe it as removing a slight layer of grit from recordings and I believe it.  It is in other areas such as musicality, sibilance control etc the 1704 is better.  Not a lot better - it is close - but it is better.  Speaking to Eric Hider he told me in the comparison they did with the ESS and the Tranquility even though it was close the ESS had the better detail.  However in other areas it was ahead and they stuck with the DAC in the Tranquility.  I think there is little doubt the ESS deserves the claim of 32 bit.

Thanks
Bill

Dracule1

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 718
Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #14 on: 9 Aug 2010, 07:50 am »
Bill, how are you defining 32 bit? Did you read my entire post?  I hope not in terms of equivalent analogue bit resolution which no one in the industry will claim.  There is no chip that will claim 180+ dB dynamic range, not even the ESS chip.  It may have more detail than the traditional multibit chip but it is not 32 bit resolution, unless you mean the chip "accepts" 32 bit words which seems me just marketing nonsense (There are no 32 bit recordings as far as I am aware).  My understanding is even 24 bit DACs aren't really 24 bits because the noise floor caused by electrical and magnetic noise will drown the last several bits of info. To get it to 180+ dB dyanmic range, thermal noise will need to be taken into account (like freezing down to liquid nitrogen if not liquid helium temperatures). I used to work with highly sensitive CCD camera used in astronomy that required cooling to get that last bit of dynamic range.  The only DAC that has some credibility in terms of bit resolution seems to be the proprietary MSB Platinum series DACs.

Anyone willing to fork over $25k and include the MSB Diamond DAC in the shootout? :green: 
« Last Edit: 9 Aug 2010, 02:02 pm by Dracule1 »

denjo

Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #15 on: 9 Aug 2010, 08:03 am »
Anyone willing to fork over $25k and include the MSB Diamond DAC in the shootout? :green:

The rest will be shot out!  :green:

bhobba

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1119
Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #16 on: 9 Aug 2010, 08:13 am »
Bill, how are you defining 32 bit? Did you read my entire post?

I am defining it as the ultimate resolution that can be achieved in reproducing a very simple signal such as say a 20 hz tone where the various tricks such as noise shaping will be very effective in getting rid of the noise introduced by the 6 bit truncation.  Even if it was only one bit resolution at 40mhz such a signal will be reproduced with very high resolution.  But this is only tech talk.   I was really keen on this sort of stuff once and studied stuff like Dirac Delta functions and Generalized Fourier Transforms.  But these days can't really be bothered.  Listening to Nat King Cole while I am typing this is more my speed now.  Sounds entrancing through the ESS DAC and a Rose Voix Tripath amp on my ML1's.  Man that combo is fast, really fast especially up-sampled to 192/24 by J river.  Interesting to see if Hugh's new Naksa can match the speed of that Tripath job.  It will undoubtedly clobber it in tons of other areas but for speed and acceleration these are killer and really reveal the detail of that ESS chip.  It's addictive.

Oh yea - did read it - very nice - thanks for posting it.

PS - Just switched to his daughter Natalee - equally as entrancing and the detail I hear is unforgeable - same as the title of the CD - and her fabulous voice. Yes the musicality of other DAC's may be a bit better but this speed and detail has its merits.

Thanks
Bill
« Last Edit: 9 Aug 2010, 09:37 am by bhobba »

denjo

Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #17 on: 9 Aug 2010, 08:28 am »
Listening to Nat King Cole while I am typing this is more my speed now.  Sounds entrancing through the ESS DAC and a Rose Voix Tripath amp on my ML1's.  Man that combo is fast, really fast especially up-sampled to 192/24 by J river.  Interesting to see if Hugh's new Naksa can match the speed of that Tripath job.  It will undoubtedly clobber it in tons of other areas but for speed and acceleration these are killer and really reveal the detail of that ESS chip.  It's addictive.

Thanks
Bill

Bill: can the little Tripath amp drive the 86 dB ML1's to reasonable SPLs? I guess the Rose Voix Tripath is very similar to the Kingrex T20, rated at about 10 watts into 8 ohms.

bhobba

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1119
Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #18 on: 9 Aug 2010, 08:37 am »
Bill: can the little Tripath amp drive the 86 dB ML1's to reasonable SPLs? I guess the Rose Voix Tripath is very similar to the Kingrex T20, rated at about 10 watts into 8 ohms.

Depends on what you mean by reasonable.  It can drive them to moderate levels where you would swear the singer was in the room with you no problem - even to the point where you have to turn it down a bit on some recordings.  Beyond that it has problems.  But since that is the type of music I listen to that is not much of a problem.  I am replacing it with another amp while I am waiting for Hugh to finish my Naksa not due to power problems but purely to get a remote volume control to make my testing of the Tranquility easier.

Get one and try it out - they are dirt cheap.

One thing I will also mention is I find there is a tendency to always wind up the volume on highly neutral speakers like ML1's.  Resisting that can be a bit of an effort.

Thanks
Bill
« Last Edit: 10 Aug 2010, 12:53 am by bhobba »

Dracule1

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 718
Re: DAC Shootout
« Reply #19 on: 9 Aug 2010, 02:05 pm »
Yea Bill I get ya. :wink:  Tech talk is fun at times, but ultimately it's what you like that matters.  Anyways, thanks for having the DAC shootout.  I'll go sell my soul and get the Diamond DAC for the shootout. :icon_twisted: