OK, sorry, I read them a while ago, in which case could you please in plain terms, outline which one is the victor and
why? - not trying to be difficult.
For reference I quote what you wrote:
The AK4396 has been around for a couple of years now and I have had a lot of people asking me about it as a possible upgrade to the AK4393 that comes stock in the Behringer 2496 audio gear but I have just now been able to get my US distributor to supply them. I installed an AK4396 dac chip in a direct out modified DEQ in order to compare it with the AK4395 that I have been recommending. The 4396 drops in to the board space vacated by the AK4393 and works fine on 3.3v with no other mods whereas the 4395 needs an extra regulator to provide 5v to pin 2, assuming that you don’t want to share the analog 5v with the digital pin. It’s interesting that the two chips do sound quite different. Although I usually have little trouble picking one component I like best from listening trials, it has been very difficult for me to choose a clear winner this time. These chips both offer stratospheric performance. It’s funny that I actually started to feel some pressure from my indecision. I also swapped the boards into the opposite chassis to make sure that I was minimizing the variables and tried both 4k and 20k stepped attenuators even though the 20k attenuators don’t work as well with my 22k amps. The 4396 has a more powerful sound even working into my 4k stepped attenuators despite it’s lower stated power consumption. It throws it’s soundstage closer to the listener, more toward the front line of the speakers and actually plays about 1db louder depending on the program material. The 4395’s bass was heard to extend much further than the stock 4393’s, along with a big improvement in resolving ability, and the 4396 has just as much extension, with a higher level, up into the mid bass. This makes the 4395 sound a bit lean in comparison. On the other hand, the 4395 throws it’s sound stage much deeper, starting just behind the plane of the speakers and going back beyond the front wall of the room. The 4396’s stage is pleasantly a bit taller. The 96 lights the stage more brightly, making each instrument stand apart from the others but lacks the ultimate resolution of the 95’s ability to follow the sounds right to the fine end. Some tracks favor the 4396’s closer presentation as feeling more involving and easier to follow. On other cuts I preferred the 4395’s extra ability to resolve reverberation tails and ambient information, making the 96 feel like it is leaving something behind. So the trade offs went back and forth causing one of those listening binges where you just keep pulling one cd after another off of the shelf, and can’t wait to get home the next day to do it all over again. At this point, with my current associated equipment, I will have to choose the AK4395 for it’s extra resolving ability even though I was hoping the 4396’s more focused and powerful sound would win as it would be easier to install. With different equipment I can see where this might go the other way so I will check back on the 4396 as things in my system change.
I see that you say the 95 bass extends lower than the 93, but I can tell you that the 93, i'm quite sure goes as low as possible.
Im using 22,000uf on the analog rails, and you were using a Behringer. They are different implementation with power supplies.
Perhaps when you give the AK4393 a very smooth power supply as I have done, the differences are not so obvious??
I originally noticed when I was using the stock 2200uf caps on the analog stage, that the bass was not deep or impressive at all, but when I gave it 22000uf the bass was all there
🙂
So, you say the 96 does not go as low, but hits harder in mid bass, which your description, sounds like how I would describe TDA1541 - which I actually prefer.
I guess I'm just looking for a bit more detail on which one is better and why? or are they just different, and really any of them are good, and it comes down to personal preference rather than necessarily a "winner" ?