How much does the DAC chip influence the sound?

[Mike]

How much do you think the type, model, version, whatever of the DAC chip influences the sound?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alpinist]

Hi Mike,

I do think that different brands of DAC chips have different sonic signatures (i.e. AKM, Burr Brown & ESS Sabre) due to different algorithms. The newer versions also tend to have lower noise levels and distortion. However, I believe the DAC's analog gain stage has a much greater influence on overall sound than the DAC chip.

Best,
Ken

[Colin]

I would say the overall implementation and design of the dac would have a far greater influence than just the chip itself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Golum]

Hi Mike,

I do think that different brands of DAC chips have different sonic signatures (i.e. AKM, Burr Brown & ESS Sabre) due to different algorithms. The newer versions also tend to have lower noise levels and distortion. However, I believe the DAC's analog gain stage has a much greater influence on overall sound than the DAC chip.

Best,
Ken

Could not agree more with Ken!
If this part of the story is done in a proper manner it influences the sound dramatically.
Below are the pictures of DAC which is fully balanced where I/A conversion is done in discrete class A technology using J-FETs...BB1794 DAC

[nonesup]

Hi Mike,

I do think that different brands of DAC chips have different sonic signatures (i.e. AKM, Burr Brown & ESS Sabre) due to different algorithms. The newer versions also tend to have lower noise levels and distortion. However, I believe the DAC's analog gain stage has a much greater influence on overall sound than the DAC chip.

Best,
Ken

x

Hi Ken.
That seems true, but do not underestimate the importance of the purely digital part, Linn seems to maintain the stage of analog gain with its Lahaundall transformers, and yet the new Klimax Katalyst I read that are a great leap forward in the sound with its new chip And other improvements in the circuits.
Regards

[Mike]

Don't you find similarities in sound across DAC chips regardless of the implementation?

SABRE
Wolfson
AKM
Burr Brown
Cyrus Logic
Etc.

For example, if I see a "Wolfson" DAC chip used, I'm confident it's going to sound very analog like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[still-one]

I would say the overall implementation and design of the dac would have a far greater influence than just the chip itself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would lean towards your conclusion. There are several variables that contribute to the sound of any DAC.

[j2020]

I would lean towards your conclusion. There are several variables that contribute to the sound of any DAC.

Apart from the digital implementation of the dac, the analog implementation is just as important to maximise a dac's potential.

Recently, I upgraded the analog interconnects between the pre- and power amps, and that alone completely elevated the sound of my dac to another level.

The dac's analog design and implementation together with the rest of the analog components in the chain determine very significantly the actual sound of a dac.

[wisnon]

Don't you find similarities in sound across DAC chips regardless of the implementation?

SABRE
Wolfson
AKM
Burr Brown
Cyrus Logic
Etc.

For example, if I see a "Wolfson" DAC chip used, I'm confident it's going to sound very analog like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What about the No-Chips, like Chord, Lampi, MSB, dCS, TotalDac, etc?

[Elberoth]

Mike, to answer your question: 10%

[rah50]

Just had my W4S DAC2 DSDse upgraded to v2 model, chip from the ES9018 to the ES9038Pro. Basically only just a pin compatible chip swap. Sounds significantly better, more presence, body and detail. So, yes, the chip only can make quite a difference.

[audio.bill]

Just had my W4S DAC2 DSDse upgraded to v2 model, chip from the ES9018 to the ES9038Pro. Basically only just a pin compatible chip swap. Sounds significantly better, more presence, body and detail. So, yes, the chip only can make quite a difference.

Congrats on the DAC upgrade, but with all due respect the new ES9038PRO is not a direct swap for the older ES9018. The ES9028PRO is but the ES9038PRO is much more advanced and not pin compatible. That explains why several manufacturers are upgrading to the ES9028PRO since it's such an easy substitution.

[rah50]

[QUOTE=audio.bill;198205]Congrats on the DAC upgrade, but with all due respect the new ES9038PRO is not a direct swap for the older ES9018. The ES9028PRO is but the ES9038PRO is much more advanced and not pin compatible. That explains why several manufacturers are upgrading to the ES9028PRO since it's such an easy substitution.[/QUOT

I thought that as well as I haven't seen anything saying it was pin compatible. However, EJ at W4S says it is pin compatible, the only difference (except perhaps new programming) being a heat sink pad on the bottom of the chip which is apparently very necessary as they had to add a heat sink on top of the chip to keep it stable at DSD256 since they couldn't use the pad underneath in the replacement. I only know what they tell me, but the other folks that have also done the upgrade are all happy.

[audio.bill]

I thought that as well as I haven't seen anything saying it was pin compatible. However, EJ at W4S says it is pin compatible, the only difference (except perhaps new programming) being a heat sink pad on the bottom of the chip which is apparently very necessary as they had to add a heat sink on top of the chip to keep it stable at DSD256 since they couldn't use the pad underneath in the replacement. I only know what they tell me, but the other folks that have also done the upgrade are all happy.

Interesting that EJ said that, since on the ESS product announcement for the ES9038PRO there is no mention of it being compatible with the older DACs, but does state that "The ES9028PRO and ES9026PRO are pin-compatible upgrades for previous generation ESS products—the ES9018S and ES9016S" which kind of implies that the 9038 isn't. In any case early reports from users about the new v2 W4S DACs are very positive, so congrats again and enjoy the tunes!

[rah50]

Interesting that EJ said that, since on the ESS product announcement for the ES9038PRO there is no mention of it being compatible with the older DACs, but does state that "The ES9028PRO and ES9026PRO are pin-compatible upgrades for previous generation ESS products—the ES9018S and ES9016S" which kind of implies that the 9038 isn't. In any case early reports from users about the new v2 W4S DACs are very positive, so congrats again and enjoy the tunes!

Here is a quote from EJ that contains some interesting info on this subject:

"Now that we’ve finalized our updates to the new DAC-2v2SE upgrade, we wanted to post a recap on things. Please refer to our original post #1411 in this thread for some background on what the issues were (specifically with DSD playback) and what we found to be the causes. In short, the sonic anomalies that could manifest themselves with DSD playback were attributable to an undisclosed register which erroneously set itself. This was coupled with the heat from the new 9038PRO chip based on placement of the DAC-2 and room temperatures it was exposed to. It should be noted that we worked with the lead designer of the 9038PRO directly on these issues, and that our original implementation was within data sheet specifications.

The undisclosed register was easy to reprogram. Once we were given the correct information, the playback issues resulting from that error went away (swooshing sound at startup and sporadic throughout some tracks).

The heat issue was interesting to find. The ESS data sheet states that the 9038 is a pin-compatible replacement for the 9018, and the exposed pad on the 9038 ”can be left open, connected to digital or analog ground. Internally connected to substrate via a conductive epoxy”, to quote ESS. Our 9038 chip implementation operated completely within acceptable temperature range, however, we found that once it reached a certain temperature after playing consecutive DSD tracks the sound would develop artifacts reminiscent of a noisy transistor. Adding to this, we found that the provided specs noted a MCLK far less than what is required for higher rate playback such as DSD256. With higher rates comes higher current demand and with that comes heat.

Our solution was a custom heatsink, made in-house with our CNC machine. See the images below. You can see how large the heatsink is, this was purposefully made to ensure proper cooling within a chassis that doesn’t have much moving air. Natural convection cooling is not very efficient so the heatsink disperses it over a large area. Together, with a more efficient 5v regulator we are now using, the result is a much cooler running product that is actually cooler than the previous DAC-2 DSDse!"

Again, I only know what they tell me!

[YuriKorzunov]

How much do you think the type, model, version, whatever of the DAC chip influences the sound?

As core component, that is primary analog signal generator in a scheme, DAC chip define the best possible sound of the scheme.

Other components (PSU, amplifiers, filters, etc.) can degrade sound only. Their task is minimal degree of degradation of own DAC chip sound.

Example #1:

DAC chip give the best sound on ideal DC (electrical current). But DC defined by power supply unit (PSU). Therefore for the best sound need provide DC pulsations close to zero.

Hence PSU can't improve sound of DAC chip, but can degrade it, if DC will contains any pulsations/noise.

Example #2:

If DAC have non-linear distortions, we can't reduce it.
However, we can play with DAC chip outside.

As example, DAC give non-linear distortions, that lead to intermodulations and rising audible products by ultrasound in 0 ... 20 kHz range. In this case, we can limit band of digital stream and reduse the audible products.


Example #3:

Analog filter important part for suppressing digital-analog conversion aliases.
For ideal apparatus these aliases is not matter, except reducing useful dynamic range. But the aliases may generate products in audible range, like previous example. Though, limiting of band of digital stream reduse audible products by aliases. Because there aliases rest in highest frequency range of sample rate band, where analog filter have maximal suppressing (in frame used sample rate).
Of course, analog filter can't reduse the DAC chip's distortions. Analog filter should provide minimal dispersion of amlitude and maximal linearity of phase in audible band.

[CPP]

The DAC chip is only a piece of the equation. There is more in that "device that is necessary to produce a sound than a DAC chip like good design, good engineering and well made supporting components. . Like a guitar it's useless without strings.

[Nikhil]

To my knowledge there is one parameter which is dependent on the DAC chip ... Dynamic Range.


Overall I agree that implementation and analog output stage design are key.
But you do need a decent DAC chip to begin with.

[YuriKorzunov]

To my knowledge there is one parameter which is dependent on the DAC chip ... Dynamic Range.

And THD. And noise floor. And frequency / phase response. And impulse response.

[audio.bill]

And THD. And noise floor. And frequency / phase response. And impulse response.

This may seem obvious to many but to be clear each of these parameters are not determined by the DAC selection alone, as they are further impacted by power supply factors, analog stage implementation, clock accuracy, etc.

[YuriKorzunov]

This may seem obvious to many but to be clear each of these parameters are not determined by the DAC selection alone, as they are further impacted by power supply factors, analog stage implementation, clock accuracy, etc.

Yes. As I wrote above, external factors can degrade or don't use advantages of DAC chip.

It's like dilemma "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?"

Good DAC chip with bad environment may be worse bad DAC chip with good environment

[mountravlr]

Is the wireless NAD DAC a good way to go? Or is a better choice recommended? Thanks.

[joeinid]

Welcome to the forum, thank you for joining.

[mountravlr]

Many years ago I owned a pair of Klipschorns powered by a McIntosh 1700 receiver, a cheap Garrard SL72b, Shure V15 III. The cartridge is too extravagant for the turntable and I still have them, but unused. Due to moving issues I sold out and ordered some bookshelf speakers from a mfg. in Carrollton, TX to get by.

[j2020]

Finally pulled the trigger for the Aurender music server.
After reading reports that my dac performs best via its usb B-port input fed by a dedicated music server, I had to bring one home to hear it for myself.

Went down to the local dealer's and listened to the N10 on demo. It was good but not quite a God-speaking moment.
Asked for a home demo but the guy was reluctant. Then I saw the N100H on passive display and got to bring that home instead.

Back home, it was indeed a God-speaking moment. The N100H was stunning, sounding way better than the N10 in the showroom. When I inserted the iFi USB3.0, which I have been using upstairs for my headphone rig, in the pathway, SQ was up again to another level.

The dealer has not got to hear how much better the N100H can sound but I get to hear how much better my dac can sound fed by the N100H.

Which brings us to Elberoth's point - the dac chip contribution is 10%, which is just about right.

I guess dac's live and die by their digital inputs and analog outputs.

J.

[Mike]

Finally pulled the trigger for the Aurender music server.
After reading reports that my dac performs best via its usb input fed by a dedicated music server, I had to bring one home to hear it for myself.

Went down to the local dealer's and listened to the N10 on demo. It was good but not quite a God-speaking moment.
Asked for a home demo but the guy was reluctant. Then I saw the N100H on passive display and got to bring that home instead.

Back home, it was indeed a God-speaking moment. The N100H was stunning, sounding way better than the N10 in the showroom. When I inserted the iFi USB3.0, which I have been using upstairs for my headphone rig, in the pathway, SQ was up again to another level.

The dealer has not got to hear how much better the N100H can sound but I get to hear how much better my dac can sound fed by the N100H.

Which brings us to Elberoth's point - the dac chip contribution is 10%, which is just about right.

I guess dac's live and die by their digital inputs and analog outputs.

J.

Congrats J! Great choice!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[j2020]

Congrats J! Great choice!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, Mike. Cheers!

[j2020]

Mike,

Can't thank you enough again for pointing me in the direction of the Aurender N100H.

The N100H via its internal storage and 120G RAM cache for playback into my dac's usb input has transformed the sound of the dac considerably. I had no idea a music server could contribute so much to the SQ of a dac.


J.

[Mike]

Mike,

Can't thank you enough again for pointing me in the direction of the Aurender N100H.

The N100H via its internal storage and 120G RAM cache for playback into my dac's usb input has transformed the sound of the dac considerably. I had no idea a music server could contribute so much to the SQ of a dac.


J.

You're very welcome. Hope your Singapore dealer was helpful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[j2020]

You're very welcome. Hope your Singapore dealer was helpful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No worries there.
Anyway, I was so very happy with the N100H that I did not want for more (and pay more) for the N10.

As for dealer's support, it wasn't really needed as transferring files from PC to the internal storage via the network was a breeze.
Initially, I played music from a thumbdrive ported to the rear but once I listened to music stored internally, there is no turning back!

I happily note here too that with this set-up, the gap between redbook and hires is narrowed considerably and at times to imperceptible with many redbook albums!

Cheers!