Our OP first says, "It is a terrible idea to judge a DAC based on the chip. I don’t think consumers should ever do that." And then he goes on to do exactly that. He likes, "the sound of DACs with AKM chips over most others." He hasn’t heard most others.
My DAC running a pair of ESS9038PRO chips, a massive power supply and a discrete analog section with some of the best components available competes easily with my analog system featuring a VPI TNT and an all tube phono pre. It has been said to be comparable to one of the best discrete R2R DACs available right here on this board. Many other very well regarded DACs, some running close to 5 figures, run ESS chips.
It’s hard to argue against a mythology.
|
@teo_audio
So much gibberish. Also, there's no apostrophe in "its."
|
The problem with ESS is that for some reason it is the brand of DAC chip that's been latched on to by any DAC maker who can afford the $95 or so for the best of their chips. Also, they make lesser lines of chips, some others of which carry the 9038 number. They also make less expensive chips that carry the ESS name and they continue to sell 9028 chips. Less expensive ESS chips are used in AudioQuest Dragonflys, for example.
So a whole bunch of relatively inexpensive, and some poorly made, DACs can advertise that they have the same chip as the $10,000 Weiss DAC. The unsuspecting, believing it is all in the chip are incented to buy. So there are a lot of poor examples of DACs out there using ESS chips. Could be that the "average" DAC using an ESS chip is not a very good performer.
I'd venture to say, though, that given three generations and three decades of development there has likely been more R & D into ESS chips than any other.
|
@milpai
It is true that some of us are giving exposure to a very small and not very well known designer/producer who has provided amazing results at a good price. By now, though, it is the newer users, including former sceptics, who are providing the favorable descriptions.
That being said, I have no dog in this fight regarding chips. I agree with the OP (I think) that this whole chip thing is way overblown and the selection of the chip, whether conventional Sigma-Delta or R2R (whether chip or discrete) or FPGA (which is just a chip after all) makes very little difference. That's been shown in our thread and others, and in other places. If we keep our eyes open we'll find great DACs made with all of these. Because in the main, great DACs are made with great power supplies, great clocking devices and great analog stages.
|
@yoyoyaya
Specifically, which Esoteric model do you have in mind?
|
@alexatpos
When you say, "if you are trying to compare architecture of dacs (R2R, Sigma-delta or Fpga) and bring some conclusions out of it, yet alone trying to conclude something on bases which model of chip is in some dac." you seem to miss the point completely, or at least my point.
The "architecture" of any DAC has less to do with the chip (whether it be S-D or R2R or FPGA) or discrete R2R and more to do with power supply, clocks and analog section. That’s how one can begin to judge a DAC, yes, even before listening. Doesn’t anyone ever look inside one of these? Perhaps I’ve spent too much time over at head-fi.😊
Using the Esoteric D07-X as an example, some may think it’s a good DAC because it costs about $5000. But Japanese made DACs are priced (or overpriced) like US or European DACs. If you look inside the DAC it has a single relatively inexpensive, and unshielded, r-core transformer supplying both digital and analog functions, a single clock and, as far as I can tell from on-line descriptions, OP amps controlling the analog section.
That doesn’t spell high quality in my dictionary--no matter what the chip is. The chip, given something respectable, is not all that important. IMO it has been made important by marketing. It is what they want us looking for, along with a fancy case--rather than the stuff on the inside that really costs and really matters.
|
@milpai
For some reason you are discussing posts appearing on another thread. I don't know why you are doing it here rather than there: "But when there was a communication issue on the manufacturer side that some one reported, you guys pounced on such posters, acted as mediators and tried to resolve the issue. To me that raised a red flag. The product must be good - but the manufacturer is responsible for communication and getting issues resolved."
I went over the section I think you are referring to and have only to tell you that there was no "communication on the manufacturer side." The manufacturer is essentially a one man shop that does no marketing at all and sells all he can make. His only outside communications seem to be in support of his customers' technical needs. A problem did arise with the merchant Shenzhen, but please don't confuse them with the manufacturer. If you'd like to discuss this further I'd suggest a PM.
Just for the record, most of my system: amp, preamp, TT, phono pre, etc., is manufactured here. I tend to buy where the value is.
Finally you write, "Great details and separation means thrilling to one person, while sounding sterile and lifeless to another." A really fine DAC, like live acoustic sound, is not subject to this sort of trade-off.
|
@milpai
You might want to ask sns about the Okto DAC8. He has one and thinks very highly of it.
|
And now for a controversial comment.😅 I think FPGA is basically a marketing tool used to differentiate some DACS from the rest of the field. I find it almost impossible to believe that it can be feasible for an ordinary audio electronics company to attempt to out-perform the decades of development into chips by companies like ESS, TI, Philips, AKM, Burr-Brown and others, not to mention the companies producing discrete R2R circuits. After all, FPGA chips are still just chips (and mostly D-S, I think). Yes, they may be altered, but for what? To correct mistakes? To bring them to where they should have been in the first place? Or to bring performance closer to that of conventional chips? Moreover, I find that within most FPGA DACs there is less by way of power supply, clocking, and/or quality analog section than in conventional chip based products at similar prices. Their margins are tremendous. I’ll cite the PS Audio DirectStream as but one example. There are many others.
I’m putting my flak jacket on.
|
Notwithstanding the evident quality of the SW1X DAC (and it is a $13,000 DAC after all) the last place I would look for objective technical info is in on the PR pages of a manufacturer. No one does that better, probably, than Chord's Rob Watts who is all over the internet in print and in video telling the world that the only way to do it right is the FPGA way he does it.
But it is true, as was said, that when it comes to the other things, beyond chip set, the SW1X is a great example, and the Chord is wanting. The DAVE (at $12,600), for example, uses an inexpensive to build switch mode power supply and two $1.50 TI chips at the center of the DAVE's analog section. Another example of FPGA and not too much else.
|
AK4493SEQ:
THD+N [dB] -115
S/N [dB] 123
High-rate playback; PCM 768kHz, DSD512
ES9038PRO:
THD+N [dB] -122
Supports up to 768kHz PCM, DSD256 via DOP and native DSD1024
DNR [dB] 140 (mono) 132 (8-Ch)
It's all silly. No one has ever listened to a DAC chip.
|
