DACs

virtue · « **on:** 15 Jun 2009, 06:28 am »

'Nuff said.

HT cOz · « **Reply #1 on:** 15 Jun 2009, 04:35 pm »

How about a new ESS Sabre32 Dac?

http://www.esstech.com/index.php?p=products_DAC

A basic version with USB/Coax Inputs focused on a clean output section would be great.

virtue · « **Reply #2 on:** 15 Jun 2009, 05:34 pm »

Michael's experience has been that the with the current state of technology, most of the DAC chips out there are pretty good, and net-net, hardly matter. On the other hand, the analog output section, specifically the use of good transformer coupling - has a far greater effect on sound quality. Our DAC prototype with the upgraded transformers is simply amazing sounding. I wonder how much better it would get with the ESS chips (vs. Cirrus or other commodity DACs). Michael seems to think, "not much." I welcome advice to the contrary.

HT cOz · « **Reply #3 on:** 15 Jun 2009, 06:16 pm »

I think one of the outstanding design elements of the ESS DAC is what they call "Patented multi-bit Hyperstream modulator with Revolver Dynamic Matching and time-domain Jitter Eliminator" which sounds like a bunch of marketing mumbo jumbo. However, if you read up on the few players/dacs out their using the chip, it is for real.

At this point being able to connect it to a media tank / wireless streaming player / computer etc. and not having to worry about re-clocking, jitter etc makes it worth a serious look.

My take is that the company that gets this right at a good price stands to make a killing.

virtue · « **Reply #4 on:** 15 Jun 2009, 06:38 pm »

Of course, we could offer an ESS DAC for less money than our competitors but the primary question would be: does it audibly improve the sound? The issues with jitter/clocks seem important in the computer audio (USB) realm... but the ubiquitous BB chips do a great job of cleaning up the jitter barn. If we use tubes, they're going to further mush up the sound... putting aside the marketing stuff, will the ESS module actually give us an audible improvement? I doubt it but remain open minded.

I suppose we could put this to rest by getting an ESS test mule and doing an A-B with our standard DAC input section, and leave the rest of the design the same. If anyone has an ESS mule to offer for the benefit of product design, speak up! It will be returned in-tact!

Cheerwino · « **Reply #5 on:** 15 Jun 2009, 11:23 pm »

Peachtree Audio is using the ESS chip in its new Nova integrated and apparently in the upcoming Decco 2. As an owner of a first gen Decco, this kind of irritated me, since they made a big deal of the unit being a Scott Nixon designed NOS DAC and then they drop that set up for the latest thing just a few months later--even going with another designer. Kind of undercut their initial message. I know technology is constantly changing but, still. I like my Decco, but...

HT cOz · « **Reply #6 on:** 16 Jun 2009, 01:39 am »

Quote from: Cheerwino on 15 Jun 2009, 11:23 pm

Peachtree Audio is using the ESS chip in its new Nova integrated and apparently in the upcoming Decco 2.

Yes but not the reference DAC. People say it's a good value for the DAC and preamp at $1k.

Being happy with what you already have, now that must be a good sounding combo

HT cOz · « **Reply #7 on:** 17 Jun 2009, 08:50 pm »

I wrote the ESS rep to find out how much an evaluation board is for the ES9012 and they replied $450.

virtue · « **Reply #8 on:** 17 Jun 2009, 09:05 pm »

I'm in touch with them. We'll see how it goes. The chip that the Nova uses is NOT the ES9012 and is within $2 of the other DACs that command fewer than 4 sentences of market-speak to describe. In fact, the ES9006 seems like a steal - could be far cheaper to implement than using the BB + Cirrus chips together! Michael will decide whether it sounds better or just different in the way that most DACs sound different from one another.

dweekie · « **Reply #9 on:** 17 Jun 2009, 09:30 pm »

Quote from: virtue on 17 Jun 2009, 09:05 pm

The chip that the Nova uses is NOT the ES9012 and is within $2 of the other DACs that command fewer than 4 sentences of market-speak to describe.

I noticed that too when the Nova came out. Like the Tripath chips, I think the ESS name alone is interesting since it is the up and coming new dac brand. Cirrus Logic, AKM, Wolfsen, and Burr Brown seem pretty common nowadays.

I'm sure the ESS sounds great, but at this point, all the products based on the dac chip are more than I want to spend right now.

virtue · « **Reply #10 on:** 17 Jun 2009, 09:34 pm »

This is very mature technology. There are difference in sound between chips, but it's mainly a preference issue, according to Michael. I do understand that Audiophilia is a chronic disease and it really can't be cured through reason alone. We'll do some investigation and let you know what we find. And you're right, it shouldn't cost any more for an ESS 9006 dac as it does for a Cirrus dac.

HT cOz · « **Reply #11 on:** 18 Jun 2009, 06:40 pm »

Seth,

This sounds really promising. Looking forward to seeing how your DAC turns out!

wilsynet · « **Reply #12 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 10:57 pm »

I'd be very interested in a future Virtue DAC. I presently have an outstanding example of a NOS DAC, but have recently become interested in high-def audio, and expect my next DAC to be capable of 24/192 or at minimum 24/96. I'm hoping whatever DAC chip you choose can do this.

SPDIF a requirement, and USB nice to have, but not essential as I have an Empirical Audio Off-Ramp 3 (USB to SPDIF converter and reclocker).

Any idea as to time frame? Would love to be an early beta tester ...

virtue · « **Reply #13 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 11:43 pm »

Hey Will -
Thanks for your enthusiasm. We'd love to have the DAC ready by RMAF in October. Crossing my fingers.
Seth

droht · « **Reply #14 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 11:09 am »

Ideally I think you want USB and SPDIF connectivity, unless cost implications are such that it makes sense to have two separate DACS that have one input each. I just picked up a Carat-Topaz DAC. It has USB and optical inputs, and a headphone jack. List price is $449. I think it is a pretty good baseline product for comparison. Sound quality through DAC is very good, and versatility to connect phones is great for me in a desktop system.

dburna · « **Reply #15 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 12:08 pm »

Quote from: virtue on 15 Jun 2009, 05:34 pm

Michael's experience has been that the with the current state of technology, most of the DAC chips out there are pretty good, and net-net, hardly matter. On the other hand, the analog output section, specifically the use of good transformer coupling - has a far greater effect on sound quality. Our DAC prototype with the upgraded transformers is simply amazing sounding. I wonder how much better it would get with the ESS chips (vs. Cirrus or other commodity DACs). Michael seems to think, "not much." I welcome advice to the contrary.

Just my $0.02, but I pretty much agree with your/Michael's assessment. The more important issues with DACs seem to be:

1. Power supply
2. Output section (transformer-cupled seems a good way to go)
3. Jitter control, especially for a USB interface.
4. DAC chip (a distant fourth)

I feel like it's somewhat in this order of importance, though your implementation experience may vary. I'd be curious to know what method you would be using to control input jitter. USB may not be the best way sonically to get input into a DAC, but it's becoming somewhat ubiquitous -- kind of hard (from a market perspective) not to provide a USB solution. Same with S/PDIF, to ensure compatibility with outboard CD players and other digital sources.

Since I assume that you are shooting for a(n unspecified) price point but with world-beater performance, I would like to see your DAC have the following features (in no particular order):

1. At least two inputs (USB and S/PDIF as essentials, TOSlink as a nice-to-have); I2S input might be nice, but to what end since so few digital sources seem to support I2S output?
2. Transformer-coupled output; I agree -- stay away from a tube output stage, not because of sonics but because it will add to the offering price
3. Some demonstrably well thought-out solution to input jitter, particularly on USB input; said solution can be chip-based, but there are only a few solutions of merit currently available (I think Wolfson has one, but I'm not sure). Many USB receiver chips aren't really that good at jitter reduction, and a number of folks seem to assert that USB is not a low jitter solutions (especially relative to S/PDIF...and even that is no great shakes on the jitter front).
4. Support for 24/192 input, with at least 24/96 on USB -- gotta have some flexibility to support the future
5. If you use over/upsampling, having the ability to defeat same would be nice but is not a deal-killer if not
6. Many may disagree, but I think headphone support is not the most essential feature if it will jack up the price appreciably
7. USB-to-I2S direct conversion internal to the DAC box (prior to the DAC chip interface)
8. Simple, uncluttered, understated form factor and cosmetics -- spend the money on the internals, not the externals. Your target market will understand and respond to this, I believe.
9. A well-respected DAC chip, but I expect this is pretty much a given.
10. A reasonable/convenient way to switch between inputs.
11. Remote is not required.
12. ASYNC USB support. This would be killer. ASYNC transfer is supposed to provide some definite sonic benefits w.r.t. USB jitter reduction. This isn't the easiest to implement (from what little I know) if you are trying to hit a price point, however.

Just one person's opinion. Hope it helps, though.

Regards, -dB

panomaniac · « **Reply #16 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 02:05 pm »

Hi dr and db - thanks for the comments are questions - they are most welcome!

Let me see if I can address the points 1 by 1 and let you know my thoughts.

The DAC will have USB and SPDIF for sure, probably optical as well. Tho I'm not a fan of the optical connection, more and more devices have optical only.

Agree about the important issues. I would probably put output section as #1, power as #2, but both are critical.

db's points:

1) See above. This 1st version will not have I2S in, but future versions might.
2) Yes for the transformers. There are other good ways to do it, but transformers make me happy.

3) Jitter is a problem, but in practice with a decent reciever chip and clock it's not a killer problem. Have thought about reclocking, e.g. with an SRC, but don't know if it's worth the trouble and trade-offs
4) Will do 24/96 for sure. 24/192 if possible, but there is so little content in that format. 24/96 on USB will not happen in the 1st version. Far too much work to impliment. Later, yes. I've heard very nice 16/48 via USB.
5) DAC will be upsampling for sure. But with the transformer outputs most NOS fans will be quite happy.
6) Don't know if it will have headphone. Means adding a whole headphone amp, thus cost.
7) USB-I2S most likely.

Agree on simple and uncluttered. Pure is good.
9) Good DAC chip of course, we are looking at 2 now. To be announced.
10) Input switching in an easy and elegant way is harder than you might think!
11) No remote
12) ASYNC USB. Maybe in the future. See point 4

That's a little overview of what's coming up. We'll keep you up to date.

HT cOz · « **Reply #17 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 02:09 pm »

Quote from: dburna on 24 Jun 2009, 12:08 pm

Quote from: virtue on 15 Jun 2009, 05:34 pm
issues with DACs seem to be:

1. Power supply
2. Output section (transformer-cupled seems a good way to go)
3. Jitter control, especially for a USB interface.
4. DAC chip (a distant fourth)
Regards, -dB

3 & 4 are taken care of with the ESS Sabre32 Dac chip. aa

However, all power supplies and outputs equal, does it not come down to the sonics and synergy created by the chip in the system?

roscoeiii · « **Reply #18 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 02:57 pm »

My $0.02 on the matter:

1: I agree that an easy way to select inputs would be huge. I have taken a pass on many a well-reviewed DAC becuase the input selection switch is on the back. And I'd imagine more and more folks will want to use it both with their CD players as transports as well as from a computer based solutions

2: I'd highly recommend you include optical, largely because this is the digital output that Apple has gone with. You'd lose mac users by omitting this, as well as PC users who are using Apple's Airport Express, the most elegant way to stream music wirelessly to a stereo that I've come across in my limited research. Both Mac and Airport Express have digital output via optical.

Really looking forward to seeing the final product. October eh?

mcullinan · « **Reply #19 on:** 24 Jun 2009, 03:02 pm »

Bryston BDA 1 is one of the best Ive heard. Just my opinion.
Mike