[rgbyhkr]

In looking into the HDP, I was curious what DAC chip was being used.  I saw the DAC feature info on the NuForce page, but the specific chipset isn't mentioned.  I did a forum search here and didn’t find an answer.  Elsewhere on the web, I've seen it suggested that the HDP uses a SABRE chip.  I'd love to know if that's true and, if so, which one.

Thanks.

Jeff

[srb]

NuForce does not disclose which chips they use, and if I'm not mistaken, remove all markings from the chips.
 
Steve

[rgbyhkr]

NuForce does not disclose which chips they use, and if I'm not mistaken, remove all markings from the chips.
 
Steve

Is it fair to ask if the chips are prime stock vs "b-stock"?  My guess is that they are not disclosing due to some agreement they have with the supplier in exchange for better parts pricing.  If so then that's a perfectly valid business arrangement.  However, it begs asking if the pricing is obtained not just through de-badging, but also via the acceptance of units that are refurbed or perhaps aren't as tightly QC'ed off the line?  I'm not trying to be a jerk or trying to poke at NuForce, but I think those are legitimate questions to ask as a potential customer. 

I did just come across this Google cache page which may or not be the real answer:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:OUR2NGtZ_v8J:www.bristolshow.co.uk/news_detail.lasso%3Fnewsid%3D2716%26news_title%3DNuForce%2520Icon%2520HDP%2520DAC%2520see%2520it%2520first%2520in%2520room%2520326%2520+nuforce+hdp+ess

The current version of the page is blank.  Having that info taken down would go along with such a policy and tends to lend some credence to the cached info.  Thanks for the response.

Jeff

[srb]

The explanation from NuForce was:
 
"We do not disclose anything internal and we wipe off the label on most critical chips.  Disclosing what's inside could be misleading and confusing to many users. Two vendors could achieve very different result in audio quality even if they use the same DAC. There are so many other factors involved"
 
Steve

[rgbyhkr]

The explanation from NuForce was:
 
"We do not disclose anything internal and we wipe off the label on most critical chips.  Disclosing what's inside could be misleading and confusing to many users. Two vendors could achieve very different result in audio quality even if they use the same DAC. There are so many other factors involved"
 
Steve

Let me first say thanks to Steve for these 2 responses.  I appreciate you lending help where you can.  I say that because I want to make it clear that what I will say next is not directed at you.  Sometimes, the limitations of text communication on forums make aspects like tone, targeted audience, etc difficult to convey.  What I say below is more personal commentary about what I know so far (and I do recognize that I could be very wrong, since I don't know and probably never will know all the details).

Sounds like a precursor to a rant huh?     Well, it's nothing all that dramatic.  Basically, a company who makes products in this space but who takes a stance like the one Steve quotes makes me scratch my head and wonder.  First, this is a subset of the audio world where companies aren't exactly selling to the mass market consumer.  Most of the players are niche level folks that the average Joe has never heard of.  We're not talking about widely known brands like Sony, Pioneer, Denon, etc.  With all due respect to NuForce, they are one of the smaller niche players.  Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being one of those guys.  I have equipment from many companies just like it that I absolutely love and would never trade for gear sold by the "big boys".  With that kind of niche though comes a certain kind of consumer.  Certainly far from all, but but many customers of products like this are audiophiles.  As such, many of us are interested in specs, details, etc. 

Well, if Steve's quote is an accurate representation of NuForce's overall market strategy, then you could argue that they are trying to take a different approach.  Let everyone else fight a war over components, we'll focus on the end result.  That sounds good, except for a couple of problems.  First, how do you achieve your goal if potential customers can't compare chipsets?  It's well and good to try and shift the dialogue, but if so many other companies state clearly what chips they use and NuForce doesn't, it makes comparing NuForce products a little more difficult.  Some of the folks in this niche won't even consider you if you won't tell them what chips you are using. 

Let's assume then that NuForce has weighed this and is willing to lose that business in favor of trying to shift the conversation.  That's good marketing speak, but are they really doing it?  Seeing this on the HDP section of their website makes me question that:

"Note: Icon HDP uses the same DAC as the high-end CDP-8 (MSRP $1450.00) and similar preamp as P-8S (MSRP $1650.00). The following design features contributed to the performance of Icon HDP:

The digital input has no capacitors in its signal path. The analog input utilizes a single DC-decoupling capacitor.
Components along the signal path are minimized.
The host-powered USB interface is fully isolated with optical isolators.
The 24/96 USB interface outputs a I2S signal to a high-quality DAC
The digital circuit occupies a separate daughter board.
The DAC chip consists of four internal 24/192kHz DACs that provide a fully differential and balanced output. The differential signal's DC offset operates without a need for decoupling caps.
Digital and analog voltages each have separately isolated internal power regulations."

So wait, they claim they are concerned about user confusion via the specification of a chipset yet they give all of the above?  How exactly would the additional info of a chipset model suddenly mislead or confuse users?  Seemingly, that additional information could help us better contrast NuForce's design form others.  Sure, company A uses the same chipset, but their product doesn't offer this feature or that like the HDP does.  You could say that once the chipset were known, people would forget everything else and only focus on that.  In my view, many users who are that knitpicky will pass NuForce over specifically because they can't get the chipset info.  And, most folks who aren't saavy enough to go beyond chipset probably aren't saavy enough to be looking at chipsets anyway.  I mean, how many lost sales could you have by naming your chipset vs not?  Or maybe they want to go with a mystique marketing approach...   

Somehow though, I can't escape the gut feeling that not naming a chipset has everything to do with a supplier agreement than with a core belief or even marketing.  The scenario where a company gets a well known part at a price below what other customers are paying in exchange for de-badging and lack of source acknowledgement seems likely.  Beyond that, this scenario raises real concerns about the QC level of these de-badged chips.  Why were they able to be acquired more cheaply?

This of course is all just my supposition.  I have no knowledge of NuForce's business.  That being said, I don't think what I've said above is all that outlandish.  But hey, what do I know?     

Just in case people think I was being a troll, I'll say why I came here asking in the first place.  I have a Peachtree Nova that I'm happy with.  Overall I think it's DAC capabilities are very good and I place some degree of credit to its ESS Sabre chipset.  Now I'm looking into a headphone amp/DAC to use with my iMac.  As such, I'd like to find a product that also uses an ESS Sabre chip.  Hence, the original question.

Jeff

[gerald porzio]

Do they spend more time wiping or building? Or is that privileged too?

[*Scotty*]

Bear in mind that if you do not state what DAC chipset mfgr. you use you can change from one mfgr to another to keep your price down without raising any eyebrows. If Nuforce is not naming a specific mfgr. for the chipset used in their DAC than the chances are excellent that it is not noteworthy from a marketing standpoint. If you are using one of the most technologically advanced DAC chipsets on the planet you would be a fool not to take advantage of the fact by trumpeting its presence in your products, especially given the amount of competition there is and the state of the economy.
Scotty

[EDS_]

Nuforce's thinking in this instance is a deal killer for me.  It's akin to shopping for a high performance boat while the maker tries to hide the brand of the engines and drives, heck who needs to know the displacement of his engines?  Are the motors Chrysler, Ford, Chevy?  Big blocks - small blocks?

[nuforce-casey]

We know audiophiles stereotype the equipment the moment they ID the component.  'Oh, it's a XYZ DAC, and it must sound like....'.  This is the issue we try to avoid, because as repeatedly pointed out by Jason, we can achieve very different result with the right circuit.   A good example is the Oppo BDP SE player that uses ESS DAC and 5532 Opamp, same key components are also used in the Mcintosh MCD player, yet they don't sound remotely similar.

The choices of components are merely a small piece of the puzzle.  We disclosed some of the circuit details because many of the competing products selling at much more expensive price point, omitted these important circuits that we think could be very critical to the overall performance.

On the other hand, technology progresses at a rapid rate, some of the components that are commonly recognized being 'audiophile' grade had already being surpassed by newer devices not yet known by the audiophiles.  And as a company, Nuforce doesn't have any obligation to share knowledge with our competitors.

As a side note, the UK info regarding the HDP is wrong.  They didn't ask and probably speculated and removed when we told them that's not the case.

[rgbyhkr]

We know audiophiles stereotype the equipment the moment they ID the component.  'Oh, it's a XYZ DAC, and it must sound like....'.  This is the issue we try to avoid, because as repeatedly pointed out by Jason, we can achieve very different result with the right circuit.   A good example is the Oppo BDP SE player that uses ESS DAC and 5532 Opamp, same key components are also used in the Mcintosh MCD player, yet they don't sound remotely similar.

The choices of components are merely a small piece of the puzzle.  We disclosed some of the circuit details because many of the competing products selling at much more expensive price point, omitted these important circuits that we think could be very critical to the overall performance.

On the other hand, technology progresses at a rapid rate, some of the components that are commonly recognized being 'audiophile' grade had already being surpassed by newer devices not yet known by the audiophiles.  And as a company, Nuforce doesn't have any obligation to share knowledge with our competitors.

As a side note, the UK info regarding the HDP is wrong.  They didn't ask and probably speculated and removed when we told them that's not the case.

With Casey's reply, I've gotten an official answer and I think I'll just stop here.  I respect a company standing firm on a position even in the face of challenge, but I also reserve the right to disagree with it and the overall philosophy.  In this space, I'd rather know more than less.  While I could take issue with some of Casey's comments and spend more time going back and forth, I'll just move on.  If I can't find out the details I'm looking for, then the product just isn't for me.  Best of luck to you guys.

Jeff

[smargo]

Bear in mind that if you do not state what DAC chipset mfgr. you use you can change from one mfgr to another to keep your price down without raising any eyebrows. If Nuforce is not naming a specific mfgr. for the chipset used in their DAC than the chances are excellent that it is not noteworthy from a marketing standpoint. If you are using one of the most technologically advanced DAC chipsets on the planet you would be a fool not to take advantage of the fact by trumpeting its presence in your products, especially given the amount of competition there is and the state of the economy.
Scotty

Agreed 1000% - especially in this forum!

[Aether Audio]

Folks,

I'd like to chime in here and add my $.02 worth to this little "debate."  First, I need to disclose the fact that I not only work for NuForce, but I'm also an industry "insider" due to the fact that I manufacture loudspeakers and other audio components as well.  (Relax Jason, I'm writing this while having my morning coffee J ).

Nevertheless, there was a time many years ago when this was not so true, and in those days, I was like many of you.  I wanted to know as much as I could about a product as part of the process in making a purchase decision.  Rest assured, there is no "right or wrong" in this regard and to each his own.  In our high tech world these days there will always be the entire gamut of consumers – those that couldn’t care less about specs, pieces and parts on one end of the spectrum, and those that want to "know it all" on the other end.  That's just the way it is and the way it will likely remain.

The real question comes down to what position the manufacturer should take on the matter.  Again, at one end of the spectrum there is the option to only publish the very minimal specifications as is commonly done in lower cost mass marketed products, or on the other end… full disclosure by providing the results of every test conceived by science and even going so far as to publish the full schematic diagram of a given product.  Regarding the later, don't think this to be all that extreme or rare.  As many here would know, many small "garage" manufacturers not only publish their schematics, but also do so with pride as a way of displaying the "novelty" and genius behind their designs.

In most cases though, the majority of manufacturers fall somewhere in the middle of these extremes, but that middle ground is a very broad range and where to draw the line a difficult decision.  Regardless of where that line is drawn, we should all consider the hazards involved for the manufacturer.  Going to the extreme of minimalism, they run the risk of disenfranchising the "information driven" consumer.  Then going the other extreme, they may loose sales as a result of  "loosing" in the parts comparison "game" mentioned in the posts above.  Worse yet though, providing full (or almost full) disclosure runs an even greater risk.

You see, in our high-tech world these days it's not necessarily the company with the best technology that wins market share.  In fact, at times almost the opposite is true and this the result of marketing savvy and resources more than anything. Adding to this, the number of engineers and other technically capable individuals worldwide is staggering.  From full-blown PhDs to garage shop "hacks," the world is ripe with individuals just waiting to "pounce" upon a new idea and turn it into their own.

Now… just how many of these type of individuals do you suppose either own or work in companies that are quite capable of "stealing" a design and have the capability of very efficiently marketing it under their own name?  After all, this is why we have the patent process in the first place.  Nevertheless, anybody that has worked in product design and manufacturing for any length of time will tell you that a design patent isn't worth the paper its written on.  An outright theft of a design can tie you up in court for years and end up costing more to defend than the revenue the product would bring.  Then again, patent disclosure just opens you up to those that would alter your design just enough to get around your patent in the first place.

In light of the above, the facts beg the question of just how far should a company go in "assisting" others in their efforts to copy one's designs, just to service the curiosity of a few technologically minded consumers and thereby avoid loosing a minimum of additional short-term sales.  One risks "winning the battle but loosing the war" in doing so.

Then there's the issue of the "arm-chair" engineer.  Many a "wannabe engineer" consumer is easily deceived into thinking that a product is nothing more than the sum of its parts and is fundamentally ignorant and un-trained in the art of design.  "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" in this regard and any "real" engineer knows that they key to superior design is at least 70 to 80% "implementation."

As an example, I could show the vast majority of you a pair of relatively simple, linear FET input stages that use different FET devices and ask you which is the "best" and exhibits the lowest noise.  9 out of 10 would look up the spec sheet on the parts and pick the one that uses the "best" part, which exhibits the lowest nV/√Hz.  Then I would refer you to the "truly" superior one designed by John Curl… and you would then learn just how little you know.

Just to beat a dead horse further, I can and HAVE taken a $15.00 tweeter and mounted into a matching waveguide to produce an "effective" tweeter that outperforms the vast majority of those costing well over $200.00.  Many would look at that waveguide and say… "What's the big deal?  It looks a lot like a whole bunch of other horn 'thing-ys' that I've seen in the past."  But then again, you haven't studied wave propagation, air-load parameters and compression limits, driver compression limits, dispersion characteristics, diffraction properties… and a host of other issues as I have.

No… instead… you would simply see that the tweeter is an inexpensive soft dome device and point out the latest developments in beryllium, ceramic and diamond diaphragms.  Due to the marketing hype surrounding such materials, you would be deceived into focusing on a single parameter (cone behavior) that only contributes about 25% or less to the total system performance.  In that, you would "conclude" that my $15.00 tweeter/waveguide combination could in no way compete with that diamond tweeter you've been drooling over.  Then… I would play my speaker against theirs of approximate equivalent size (and FAR greater cost) that uses that diamond tweeter… and your jaw would drop, you'd shake your head in disbelief and ask me "how in the heck…?"  And then I would respond, "It's all in the implementation my friend."

Now… let's talk some more about those DACs, eh? 
 
Take care,   
-Bob

[Crunkle]

I have to agree with Jeff.  Nuforce puts heavy spin on their products by referencing *selected* aspects of the technologies implemented in the designs, but then hides others.  Despite Jason and Casey's repeated insistence that this is to avoid "stereotyping" based on component selection, there are obviously other factors involved. If that were really the case wouldn't they wipe *all* their components? As far as as the whole not disclosing design details to competitors argument goes- no other company I've ever dealt with in audio (I have been a professional audio recording engineer and studio owner for over 10 years and have worked on countless pieces of gear from countless manufacturers from tiny garage operations to mega corporations) wipes the labels off of *any* of the components used in their designs.  It would not take any truly experienced electronics engineer with access to professional analysis equipment to reverse-engineer something like the HDP even if all the components were wiped.  If anything, this practice makes it harder for nuforce to protect its intellectual property.  Someone could simply copy the design with all the components labeled and claim they had arrived at it independently.  It seems obvious that today's consumer demands more information, not less, and nuforce's argument that providing less information will somehow help them sell more product just doesn't hold water.  I hope this can be viewed as constructive criticism and not dismissed with another inadequate explanation. 

[Crunkle]

The condescension is astounding.  Aether Audio's response demonstrates an off-putting lack of respect for the intelligence of nuforce's (and his own) potential customers.  But hey- I'm just bitter because I liked the sexy little black metal Icon boxes so much and they were so cheap that I was totally willing to believe that I was getting an "audiophile-grade" product.  My mistake for making a decision based on marketing rather than accurate information.

[gerald porzio]

One would think that they're being asked to reveal nuclear secrets. They seem to have more products than info/data on them.

[srb]

I'll add my $0.02.
 
I don't think anyone will disagree that the DAC chip used does not necessarily describe the sound, and that implementation and analog output stage is as important or more important.
 
As you said, you have several types of customers.
 
Those that are already NuForce customers, or have received a recommendation from a friend will probably just buy it and try it.
 
Those that don't really care about which chip is used or other techincal specs certainly won't be put off if that information is included.
 
Those that want to know what DAC chip, Op-Amps or whatever main chips/chipsets are used, well, just want to know.  Maybe the reasons are valid, maybe not.
 
Some competitors will disclose this information and some won't.  If your're looking at the AVA Vision DAC, Frank Van Alstine, a no-BS guy if there ever was one, will be happy to let you know he is using the Wolfson 8742.
 
dB Audio Labs, like NuForce, won't tell you very much about their Tranquility DAC.  Not even some basic specs, like S/N ratio.  I have that spec for most of the equipment I own, and it directly relates to how quiet my system is.
 
Fact is, I have no horses in this race, and a company can choose to disclose all or nothing.  But certainly, those of us who want to know these things and are denied basic information, will most likely move on.  There are just too many other competitors in the field who are more than happy to discuss most any aspect of their product.
 
If overall sales are not of high importance, that's fine.  But to think that a secretive cloak around the product won't affect sales would be naive, particularly in this fast changing and highly competitive arena.
 
If it were me, I would say "I'm using the ABC DAC chip and the XYZ output devices, but my design and implementation is superior, and outdistances the competition"
 
Okay $0.03.
 
Steve

[Crunkle]

Well said, Steve.  Thanks for the 0.03

[Charles Calkins]

How come NuForce doesn't show the DAC on their site. How would a person buy one?

                                 Cheers
                                 Charlie

[srb]

It's under the Desktop Audio section, not the High End Audio section.
 
Steve

[cliffy]

Why don't you use your ears?  If all you care about is specs than just buy a bunch of parts and put them together yourself?

Nuforce and any other manufacturer can disclose as much or as little as they want.  It is their business and their families that they are trying to provide for.  If you don't like it you can shop elsewhere. 

To get upset at the way they decide to do business seems infantile and selfish. Again, if you don't like it, go somewhere else.  No one is making you buy anything.

Again, if you are an "audiophile" and not an "audiofool" you should let your ears be involved in the decision making process.

Not intended to be a rant but I get upset at the time wasted by small mfg's having to respond and defend their business to people who won't pony up the shipping costs and have a listen.  These companies run very lean on manpower and I would rather have them designing new equipment than having to monitor audio boards.