Hi SteveN,
I appreciate your explanation of the specific differences between R2R architecture and delta sigma. Gdhal’s comments just didn’t correlate with my actual listening experiences of many DACs of both type of designs. Based on hype I had the expectation that R2R May be inherently the superior choice for sound quality but that hasn’t been supported by real world direct listening comparisons.
I completely agree with other posters here that you simply can’t make blanket statements. It truly is a matter fully dependant on overall implementation process unless one chooses to be dogmatic and stubborn in their stance. Excellent sound quality can be achieved with either approach. Delta sigma can sound sublime.
Charles |
+1 Charles. And Steve, thanks for the very informative and excellent post!
Regards,
-- Al
|
|
My DSD is causing hick ups again. I'm going to have to contact Bricasti Monday and see if they can help. I tried connecting back to just the router and although everything works the sound is just not nearly as good.
|
Wow, thanks so much Steve. That's some awesome stuff. Not sure why some are so adamant to keep on trying to say R2R is always better etc... Guys, there are some great R2R DAC's. MSB as has been mentioned as well as what may or may not be the best DAC in teh world, the Trinity DAC are R2R types. Total DAC too if I recall correctly. I was at Audio Doctor's and heard the Aqua Formula I believe it was with the Paradigm 9H's and didn't like what I heard. I know that speaker and it's just not my cup of tea, but it really was the worst I've ever heard them. Dave said it was the Aqua that wasn't burned in properly. That may have been the case, but the highs were a total wreck and I don't think burn in was the problem, but I may be wrong. I got this off the DaVinci site on the Mk2 that Richfield Hunter and Matt both own and LOVE. Now we’ve decided to push the boundaries once again with Da Vinci MKII’s 32/768 kHz PCM resistor ladder DAC engine. And history will repeat itself. Da Vinci MKII’s second decoding engine is a pure Delta-Sigma DAC capable of decoding DSD signals up to DSD256.
What does this mean? They use both? Either way you can find great DAC's using a lot of different tech and most can sound very very good. Some not so much, lol. |
+1 Steve
In addition, it needs to be better understood that the ESS 9028 DAC is a massively parallel Delta-sigma DAC - in some implementations 512 delta-sigmas are summed in various ways to create a signal. Basically this ESS chip is a hybrid between R2R and a single 1 bit delta sigma. You can describe these chips as a massive R ladder DAC with all steps the same - instead of adding 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 (four discrete resistors on an R2R) to get a value of 15, the ESS DAC will sum up 15 discrete 1 bit delta sigmas to achieve a value of 15.
The benefit of massive single bit delta sigma DACs is that through a randomized selection process the DAC chooses randomly which delta-sigmas are summed to make the required valued. This leads to huge advantages in linearity and signal to noise over an R2R!!!
Hybrid DACs like ESS are simply better technology than an R2R by a significant margin as the specifications like THD+N show. |
@jwn, @audioengr, @charles1dad, @ctsooner, @shadorne As I stated, it was/is my understanding. By all means "school me" if you have something to teach. The following excerpt from the Schiit website (as well as certain other posts on this forum and in the past) is one reason how/where I have come to my understanding. I grant you, this could be erroneous and if so I’m open to learning. The followimg is from: http://www.schiit.com/products/yggdrasil-- Forget everything you know about DACs. Yggdrasil is the world’s only closed-form multibit DAC, delivering 21 bits of resolution with no guessing anywhere in the digital or analog path. We’ve thrown out delta-sigma D/As and traditional digital filters to preserve the original samples all the way through from input to output. When doctors are trying to diagnose whether you have gas or cancer from MRI results, or when the military is trying to ensure a missile hits an ammo dump and not a nunnery next door, they don’t use “24 bit” or “32 bit” delta-sigma D/A converters. Instead, they rely on precision, multibit ladder DACs, like the Analog Devices AD5791. This allows them the bit-perfect precision they need for critical applications, rather than the guesswork of a delta-sigma. ----- Note the operative word "guessing". Secondly and in addition, I already have two different delta-sigma dacs within two of my other components (Oppo UDP-205 and Emotive ERC-3). Note the chips are entirely different (one being Sabre ESS-9038 the other Analog Devices AD1955). I’ll grant you, those components do not rise to the level of the components you envision, and I understand there is much more to the overall sound than the dac chip itself. Nevertheless, I find it more than curious and coincidental that despite the fact those chips are different, those two components sound virtually the same (to my ears) and not as "authentic" to my ears and the ears of a close musician friend I had listen to my system, specifically for the purpose of DAC evaluation. Moreover, I have read numereous posts from folks on other forums (head-fi as one example) who are (purportedly) musicians and "swear" by R2R in comparison to delat-sigma. In fact, many of the "negative sound qualities" I’ve read about delta-sigma in general I can relate to with my own ears. |
Bricasti delta sigma beat the pants off the total dac’s discrete d/a converter chips.
I don't think so, as we did just that for a day at Kramer's, a reviewer for 6 Moons, HIFI Australia, and Audio Esoteric as well as owning Soundstage Australia. His system comprised of the newest Wilson Alexia MkII and the Gryphone Antillion Evo, and I can tell you the Bricasti (latest version) wasn't in the race when compared to the Total Dac with Redbook PCM, so much so Kramer bought a Total Dac. Cheers George |
But I have heard good non R2R beat meh R2R dacs. It’s how you use it
That's why I stipulated, "
you need to go to properly implemented R2R Multibit based dacs" Cheers George |
You can think of the Delta-Sigma as an engine that creates the R2R function repetitively Delta Sigma creates a "facsimile" of Redbook PCM it can never be as bit perfect as properly implemented R2R Multibit. And isn’t that what this thread is all about??? "Absolute top tier DAC for standard res Redbook CD" Cheers George |
All this “facsimile” and “guessing” is just marketing BS at best and misleading nonsense at worst. There is no guessing. Redbook defines the signal up to 22KHz perfectly and there is no guess when you oversample. In fact the oversample file contains only as much information and all the information as in the original file and no more as it adds nothing to the signal. It also contains the entire data in the Redbook file - nothing has been thrown out at all (as would happen in a facsimile).
The bits are being converted to analog. It is the accuracy of this entire conversion that is important and NOT the specific steps in the methodology. Manufacturers want you to believe that their specific methodology is better by appealing to the old school notion that doing things in a simple archaic fashion without technology is best. If this logic were correct we would still be using an abacus or slide rule.
|
Shadorne,
I agree with the marketing vocabulary comment as this is coming from proponents of the R2R approach. To be fair this bias marketing hype can be applied to either side on some occasions.
George regarding Bricasti versus Total DAC I accept you heard what you heard in that system under those particular circumstances. I can state that I heard a direct comparison between the two Dacs in JWM's system and both components were well broken in. Absolare Signature preamplifier, Krell 600 watt mono blocks and Rockport Altair speakers.
In the listening comparison the Bricasti SE was the better sounding presentation in my opinion. Both were using ethernet connectivity. My opinion is no more or less valid than yours. We are both just reflecting on our own experiences with 2 highly regarded DACs.
Charles |
In fact the oversample file contains only as much information and all the information as in the original file and no more as it adds nothing to the signal. It also contains the entire data in the Redbook file - nothing has been thrown out at all (as would happen in a facsimile). This is yet another statement (on their faqs page) from Schiit: ************************** "We can’t get over the fact that delta-sigma DACs throw away all the original samples". ************************* And in this context they are meaning all delta-sigma, irrespective of implementation. So am I to be led to believe by those on the forum that the statement is false? And, if there is even an iota of truth in that statement, wouldn't that mean that my understanding - that delta-sigma is "lossy" - is true? |
Each to his own, as for what just I heard, no, there were 8 of us.
We all thought the Bricasti was the sweeter and less in your face with poor quality pcm cd's
.
But with good to very good cd's the Total was more detailed had better bass, dynamics and had a jump factor that the Bricasti couldn't come close to.
And Kramer being a reviewer and has to compare review equipment to what he has, and wanted the best warts and all (even if playing poor cd's) and not to be kind to them.
Cheers George
|
Gdhal’s comments just didn’t correlate with my actual listening experiences of many DACs of both type of designs.
Hi @charles1dad I would like to point out that the comment to which you refer I made, prior to your post, is with respect to the technology of delta-sigma itself, which would have nothing to do with subjective listening preferences. Not true. I think you are maybe confusing this with lossy formats. Hi @audioengr I note the occurrence of the word (including stemming) "approximate" appears no less than five (5) times in the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-sigma_modulation |
Not sure why some are so adamant to keep on trying to say R2R is always better etc... @ctsooner I suspect the answer to your question has something to do with feedback (no pun intended) from those - such as myself - who have heard both technologies and merely wish to convey their findings. |
I think you don’t know what your talking about. Delta sigma beat discrete how could that be if information is missing? @jwm In answer to your question, please refer to the post I directed to audioengr 01-13-2018 7:34pm. Thanks. |
If the Bricasti was not used with Ethernet through it’s own internal board then no contest. Through usb it’s good but not great. I had the latest total dac and the Bricasti had way more dynamics. There was nothing about the total dac that was better. If you like hi fi sound then I could see how you could like the total dac. |
Hi Hal, I would put it that delta-sigma is a **less direct** way of accomplishing D/A conversion than R2R. However, the results of BOTH approaches are approximations, in the sense that what comes out does not correspond to what goes in to an infinitely precise degree. And of course the same goes for everything else in the recording and reproduction chain, both theoretically and in terms of the various practical implementations, from the recording microphones to the speakers in our listening rooms and everything in between. Even the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, which underlies A/D conversion, D/A conversion, and essentially all digital signal processing, is an approximation in any real world implementation. (For example, note in that Wikipedia page the various equations involving integrals or summations that are taken from minus infinity to plus infinity). So in that sense **everything** in the recording and reproduction chain is lossy, to some degree. Which of course tells us nothing whatsoever about which design approaches and which practical implementations of those approaches are to be preferred. But my perception and belief, as evidenced in part by various posts from highly experienced audiophiles in this very thread, has been that depending on the specific implementation both approaches can provide results which are satisfactory to many, at pretty much all price points that can be considered to be audiophile-oriented. It’s as simple as that, IMO. Best regards, -- Al |
@almarg
Thank you so much Al for putting all of this into lets call it "much better perspective". Given what you are stating - that in a sense everything in the recording and reproduction chain is lossy - can/would you provide your opinion, even if mere speculation, as to what Schiit is meaning by their statement:
"we can’t get over the fact that delta-sigma DACs throw away all the original samples"
This appears to indicate samples - which I assume and perhaps is implied is equivalent to music - is in fact lost, at least to a greater degree than could or otherwise should be lost.
|
Hi Hal, I would begin my answer to your question just above by noting the second sentence in the Wikipedia writeup on delta-sigma which you linked to:
It [delta-sigma] is also used to convert high bit-count, low-frequency digital signals
into lower bit-count, higher-frequency digital signals as part of the
process to convert digital signals into analog as part of a digital to analog converter (DAC).
So in that sense, yes, the original samples are "thrown away." However that says nothing at all about the degree to which musical information is lost in the process. And regarding my opinion, I would say that as is usually the case in audio how well a design approach is implemented can be expected to be more important than which approach is chosen. Best regards, -- Al |
I played great Redbook and all sounded better on the Bricasti. If RTR is better it sure is not the total dac. I would love to hear the best MSB dac in my system and I could finally put this to rest. I loved MSB at shows but the 100,000.00 price is steep. Please someone bring over a MSB I’m in Michigan. |
However that says nothing at all about the degree to which musical information is lost in the process. @almarg Hi Al. Please allow me to preface this post by stating that in no way am I looking or wanting to be argumentative, and you already know how much I value your input in particular. Does your statement (quoted above) in effect mean "yes, musical information *is* lost, however, exactly how much musical information is lost is not known (or undefined), and presumed to be irrelevant"? |
Jeff (Jwm),
Even if you were to hear the MSB 100K dollar DAC and found it to sound exquisitely superb(😊) it still wouldn’t settle any debate in regard to superior D/A conversion. Rather it would speak to A to Z implementation and the "multiple " factors that contribute to a successful audio product.
You’ve been at this a long time and know it’s just a matter of time before the next "best DAC is anointed. Not being critical but you and I know this is the inevitable course. BTW the next anointed best DAC could utilize R2R, delta sigma or some other approach. So this question of superior conversion method is never settled.
Implementation trumps specific design approach as Al astutely summarized above.
Charles |
@gdhal
Hi Hal,
No, my statement was not intended to imply that musical information is lost when data having more bits per sample and a lower sample rate is converted to fewer bits per sample at a higher sample rate. From a theoretical standpoint nothing will be lost if the increase in sample rate is sufficient to compensate for the decrease in bits per sample.
And while I do not have detailed familiarity with the specifics of modern delta-sigma DAC designs, user reports of good results with high end delta-sigma designs, published measurements, comments by some who have such familiarity (such as the comments provided by Steve and Shadorne yesterday), as well as my general belief (shared by many others here) that in audio how well a chosen design approach is implemented is usually more important than which approach is chosen, all lead me to believe that "throwing away the original samples" (as referred to by Schiit) is a non-issue in modern high end designs.
Best regards,
-- Al
|
Gentlemen, I want to thank you for the fascinating discussion and compliment you all on the level of decorum, respect and intelligence all have maintained!!! We have had multiple designers and manufacturers involved along with many enthusiasts and this “side debate” has stayed mature and informational for all to read. It just proves the quality and intelligence of those involved in helping keep this wonderful thread weaving and flowing for all these years.
Sorry for the intrusion. But it makes a Pappa proud. :) |
Charles I agree with you, but let’s put it this way. Say the Bricasti best the MSB, well there has not been any highly rated RTR yet that I have heard to be king. There can only be so many one can test , but this may possibly show I prefer delta sigma. The point is I listen to and enjoy what sounds good. I’m not trying to bash RTR but so far to me it does not have a good track record. |
It’s funny how the reviewer thought the total dac had more detail. I totally found the opposite. Not only more detail but also much more open and much bigger soundstage beyond the speakers for the Bricasti. When I told the total dac owner about not very open, he said, oh you have to try my new 20,000.00 dac seven. Oh my did I laugh to myself. |
The best explanation is the “measuring cup analogy” in Stereophile 1990. Nothing is “thrown away” - Delta-Sigma is just a different (more accurate measuring cup) method for conversion to analog. R2R methodology lost the technical battle about 20 years ago - R2R is too expensive and too inaccurate to be a leader in DAC technology. R2R relies on impossible accuracy in analog devices whilst Delta-Sigma elegantly uses mathematics to achieve superior performance in a simple robust way. The latest hybrid ESS approach - massively parallel one-bit DACs all on the same DAC chip with random selection to reduce noise is some 30dB+ better in THD+N - massively outperforming R2R for a fraction of the cost. Technical progress is wonderful! As far as I can see, the marketing of R2R is highly misleading - full of all kinds of false insinuations - “throwing away data” - simply not true, not bit-perfect (when delta-sigma is far more accurate), “facsimile” - ironically R2R is actually the poor quality analog facsimile, “guessing” - again ironic because R2R actually has built-in massive non-linearities that makes the accuracy no better than a guess where delta-sigma is many times more accurate. Here is a basic description of the different approaches: ”The same reasoning underlies the development of bit-stream decoders. The problem with a conventional digital/analog converter (DAC) is that its operation involves mainly analog processes and is therefore approximate. A 16-bit DAC contains a precision current source and an array of 16 switches. Each switch is connected to a resistor, and the resistors are supposed to be scaled in exact 2:1 ratios so that each switch, when opened, will contribute exactly twice as much current to the output as the switch below it. The switches are controlled by the 16-bit codes from the CD; thus by opening and closing in various combinations, a total of 65,536 different output values can be generated. But the topmost switch (the most-significant bit, or MSB) contributes 32,768 times as much current as the least-significant bit (LSB). If the MSB current is in error by as little as one part in 32,768, the effect of the LSB is swamped. In most CD players it is; few 16-bit DACs operate to better than 15-bit accuracy. The practical result is that most CD players are non-linear at very low signal levels, reproducing small signals at the wrong levels and with added distortion. Keep in mind that this problem arises not from the digital code itself but from small errors in an analog quantity—the current produced by the DAC for the several most-significant bits. For comparison, imagine that you were assigned to fill a bucket with a known amount of water, using measuring cups varying in size from one ounce to 64 ounces. Even if you use care in filling the largest cup, it might contain 63.7 or 64.5 ounces instead of 64; you can’t be sure that it contains exactly 64 times as much water as the smallest cup. But there is a way to obtain an exact result: use only the one-ounce cup, and transfer its contents to the bucket 64 times. The capacity of the cup may not be exactly one ounce, but as long as you fill it the same way each time, the total amount transferred will be proportional to the number of refills—an exactly linear relationship. This is the idea behind 1-bit decoding. In place of a method whose result depended on slightly uncertain analog quantities (the currents in the DAC), we have adopted a simple counting scheme—a purely digital process. Of course with a small cup you’ll have to work fast, but in modern digital electronics that’s not an obstacle.” Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/pdm-pwm-delta-sigma-1-bit-dacs-peter-w-mitchell#44ZdP17jRzTtUGor... |
Jeff,
The primary claim concerning R2R superiority is that it is more "analogue " like in its sonic character. You and I have heard a fair number of R2R DACs and haven’t found this to be the general consistent result although individually some succeed more than others.
What I found interesting is the Bricasti SE was more dynamically potent than the TotalDac but also "more" analogue like and more organic. This went against the so called conventional wisdom expectation. George and his 8 fellow listeners heard a different outcome.
This isn’t surprising given the undeniable subjective nature of audio, listening sessions and all the accompanying variables associated. Ironically this is what contributes to the joy and fascination of what is the High End audio experience we’re all enthusiastically immersed in.
Charles |
@shadorne
Thank you. I mean that sincerely because you do in fact present an abundance of technical data in support of delta-sigma. In my case, I suppose I'm fortunate to have components with both technologies, and have carefully listened to both. While I may not have a 30K divinci dac - which uses delta sigma - I'd have to imagine it sounds spectacular to say the least. All I can indicate with certainty, however, is that to my ears, I prefer the sound presentation of my multibit DAC to that of my delta-sigma. Not only because it sounds more analog, but because it sounds more "real" and authentic. And I get what Al is saying - that those qualities are a result of the implementation and not the technology. So be it. Anyway, who knows what tomorrow's technology will be. Enjoy the music while we can.
|
The writeup by Peter Mitchell which Shadorne provided (thanks!) is excellent. But to be precise, the architecture it describes for a "conventional" DAC, in which "the resistors are supposed to be scaled in exact 2:1 ratios,"
is not R2R. In an R2R ladder only two unique resistor values are required, rather than a different resistor value for each of the 16 (or however many) bits in each sample. R2R architecture is explained pretty well in the Wikipedia writeup on "Resistor Ladders."However Mr. Mitchell's basic points about the issues inherent in the "conventional" architecture he describes are nevertheless applicable to R2R as well, as can be seen in the Wikipedia writeup. Regards, -- Al
|
Okay, time for me to weigh in again.... I also manufactured an R2R DAC in the past, using the laser-trimmed PCM1704 binned for performance. It was a very sweet sounding DAC, and not because of the tubes (I used Siemens CCA NOS tubes, very fast). The detail rendering however was never as good as modern Delta-Sigma chips. Here is what the PCM1702 datasheet says about R2R and Delta-Sigma: "However, even the best of these (R2R’s) suffer from potential low level
nonlinearity due to errors in the major carry bipolar
zero transition. Current systems have turned to oversampling
data converters, such as the popular delta-sigma architectures,
to correct the linearity problems. This is done, however,
at the expense of signal-to-noise performance, and the
noise shaping techniques utilized by these converters creates
a considerable amount of out-of-band noise. If the outputs
are not properly filtered, dynamic performance of the overall
system will be adversely effected." So, both techniques can have good S/N (Delta-Sigmas have improved a LOT since the 90’s), but the issue with Delta-Sigma is the filtering. The issue with R2R is this non-linearity. This is what I had said all along. Eliminate the bad digital filtering and you have something really fine with Delta-Sigma. This is what my ears tell me. As for comparing the Bricasti to the TotalDAC: I think the devil is in the details. Can you even make it apples-to-apples? Even if both were driven S/PDIF, does Bricasti resample and the TotalDAC not? If one is using Ethernet and the other USB, it’s apples to oranges. If even one USB, S/PDIF or Ethernet cable is different in the two systems, all bets are off. The only valid comparisons would be maybe Ethernet to Ethernet and USB to USB using the same playback software from the same computer or server and the same cables. And we have not even talked about the system of preamp, amps and speakers yet. The point is that no one can make any credible claims about one DAC over another if the device is not tested in the same system, preferably at the same time with the same music. Particularly if both DACs are very good quality. This is exactly why Matt’s experiments are so important, even more important than professional reviews. Even reviewers systems change over time. If reviewers did more shootouts like Matt has done, we would learn a lot more.
Steve N. Empirical Audio |
In my system I used the same ethernet cables to both dac's playing the same songs using the same computer. No changes were made except for two different dac's.
|
Steve,
In the DAC comparison I commented on regarding the Bricasti SE and Total DAC the only variable was switching between the two DACs. Same ethernet cable, components, speakers,cables etc. The intention of the comparison was not to declare a champion in any sort of definitive sense.
It was an opportunity to listen to 2 very well regarded DACs in a very good and familiar audio system playing music we knew well. No proclamations just an opinion on how they reproduced music in a direct one on one scenario. It was both fun and informative,. Common sense dictates that listener preferences will vary.
Charles |
Charles.
Another Davinci2 owner was a previous Bricasti SE DAC owner and said that although close, the Davinci2 was unquestionably superior.
I will I’ll ask him to bring it over the next time he comes so we can hear it in my system.
I believe that the top tier TotalDAC is something special. I intend on getting it in sometime this year, but it’s a huge multi unit system. The TotalDAC system, TrinityDAC and MSB Select 2 may be the only thin to outperform the Davinci2. Of course, there’s CH Precision, Soulution, DCS Systems and such as well, but I think that like the Boulder they offer dynamics and detail but lack musicality (totally my opinion, and some of it assumption and not a result of listening).
Thanks Steve, for the complement. I try to keep things objective in regards to apples to apples comparisons, consistent and honest. |
....but the issue with Delta-Sigma is the filtering. The issue with R2R is this non-linearity. @audioengr Perhaps I’m "fanning the flames" here just a bit, nevertheless, I’d like to comment on this in particular because I was/am well aware (so I think) of the "filtering" long before I posted in this thred. My Oppo UDP-205 (delta-sigma) has a user preference setting whereby the filter can be changed. Way back, I did some research as to what this entailed, and found it had all to do with "pre-ringing", "post-ringing" and basically everything at the 20 KHz point. I tried all (7) available filters and none made the sound "better" than the default (mini-phase fast). It only made it as good or worse, to my ears. So, what "filter" is the issue with delta-sigma? |
Per Steve’s last post above, this is exactly why hybrid ESS 9028 designs are way ahead of everything.
The latest ESS designs are halfway between the R2R style and delta - sigma! The 9028 a 6 bit delta sigma by virtue of hundreds of 1 bit delta sigma on the chip!!!
|
jwm and charles1dad - I think the problem might be the system. Each of you heard the same two DAC's, but in different systems. It is very possible that one preamp or set of cables made one DAC sound better than the other and the opposite in the other system. There is certainly expectations and listener preference, but I would suspect that it might be more the system effect. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
My Oppo UDP-205 (delta-sigma) has a user preference setting whereby the filter can be changed. Way back, I did some research as to what this entailed, and found it had all to do with "pre-ringing", "post-ringing" and basically everything at the 20 KHz point. I tried all (7) available filters and none made the sound "better" than the default (mini-phase fast). It only made it as good or worse, to my ears.
So, what "filter" is the issue with delta-sigma? Filter response, such as "apodizing filters" are not what I'm talking about. If you want to really improve Delta-Sigma filtering, you have to either eliminate the digital filter completely, replacing it with analog filters, or set the filter frequency much higher than most chips do automatically. This effectively removes the effects from the audio range. This is what I do in my DAC. The user can select the 192 digital filter when playing back 44.1 files, and this is how most customers use it. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
+1 on the filters - Benchmark overrides the ESS chip filters by ensuring the chip operates at 211KHz - even for Redbook - this mean the filters actually sit far above the audio (instead of close to the Nyquist ) and be extremely gentle such that they have minimal affect on the audio band (flattest response without the usual ripple) |
Steve, I heard the DAC comparison in Jeff’s (Jwm) system. This audio system was described by me in a post yesterday. System variability is a given and can’t be eliminated. This is why synergy is such a popular word in the High Audio vocabulary. It always a factor.
Matt,
For clarification the TotalDac d1-six was the one Jeff and I used BTWI agree with your characterization of the Boulder sonic signature.
Charles |
If you’re in the $15k-$20k range, the best thing you’re going to find is an Exemplar Expo T205
The catch is that the best sound comes from playing directly from a USB key using its own GUI (which i hate)
It’s Roon ready, but if you want that to actually sound good, you’ll be spending the rest of your $10k budget trying to match the sound of the USB key.
Feel free to hit me up if you want to fly out to Fresno and hear mine.
|
So, both techniques can have good S/N (Delta-Sigmas have improved a LOT since the 90’s), but the issue with Delta-Sigma is the filtering. The issue with R2R is this non-linearity. This is what I had said all along. Eliminate the bad digital filtering and you have something really fine with Delta-Sigma. This is what my ears tell me. @audioengr Thank you for your response regarding my question about the filter, and pointing out that you remove or replace it in your design, and how that differs from "apodizing". It would seem Benchmark also replaces the filter, given what shadorne states about how the ESS chip filter is overridden. Okay. Fair enough. Regarding the non-linearity, this is corroborated by Benchmark. According to Benchmark (this was forwarded to me by Rory Rall at the time I was in the market for a DAC and Benchmark was on the radar): "The distortion in a ladder DAC is caused by resistor mismatch. This resistor mismatch causes linearity errors. The step sizes between adjacent digital codes are inconsistent. Even if the resistors are precision trimmed, they drift with temperature. This drift is not just a function of the ambient temperature. The change in resistance can even be induced by the instantaneous heating caused by the audio signal." So it would seem (to me anyway) that the non-linearity issue you are referring to is a function of *resistor temperature*, which lends credence to why Schiit recommends leaving the unit on 24/7. That said, I can tell you that even from a cold (off 12hrs) start, and while playing and the unit is warming, my Yggy sounds better than both of my delta-sigma, which have "digititis" by comparison. This is what my ears tell me. |
gdhal - what source is driving your Yggy? What are your Delta-Sigma DAC's?
Steve N. Empirical Audio |
gdhal - what source is driving your Yggy?
What are your Delta-Sigma DAC’s? Musical Fidelity M6si > Belden 5T00UP > Golden Ear Triton Reference (pair) Schiit Yggdrasil > Canare L-4E6S XLR > M6si Oppo UDP-205 > Belden 1694A (Canare RCAPs) > Yggdrasil Emotiva ERC-3 > Belden 1800F AES/EBU > Yggdrasil Samsung SMT-C5320 > Mitsubishi Eska POF > Yggdrasil EDIT: Steve, the Oppo and Emotiva (both delta sigma) which now act as transport were my primary source before I obtained the Yggy. I did perform extensive A/B testing, and that saga was documented here: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/new-yggdrasil-first-and-second-impressions |
Both DACs were auditioned in only one system, my own. The same amp, speaker, preamp, and cables. |
Matt you have not heard the best in digital if using usb. I believe your dac uses usb. When you hear digital with Ethernet there is no comparison. The dac at least the Bricasti takes on an analog quality that has to be heard to be believed. |
I feel so confident in this dac that it would be interesting to see if MSB could actually beat it. I would hope so at 100,000.00. It would also have to be hooked up with Ethernet for a fair comparison. |
I feel so confident in this dac that it would be interesting to see if MSB could actually beat it. I would hope so at 100,000.00.
@jwm I’m just curious, what music do you prefer to listen to? After looking at the MSB price sheet http://www.msbtech.com/image/Retail_Price_List_2016.pdf I’d also be curious to understand what you perceive is missing from lesser DACs, that these MSB DACs offer. Thanks. |
