Hi,
Agreed, except I'd prefix a "Active Components followed by"...
Hmmm, a bad transformer or capacitor remains a bad one, no matter how you use it. And a bad Op-Amp remains a bad one, pretty much regardless of application. Of course, a good part may still be crippled by bad design.
Now, I do not see why digital receivers or DAC's should be any different.
When all is said and done the 8416 still passes any source jitter below 10KHz, no matter how you configure it, so a nanosecond jitter in (quite common with most transports) mean a nanosecond out, which is basically equal to 13 bit performance from a 16 bit (or more) source.
But again, if you insist on using CS8416 and CS4398 do not let me deter you. You asked for input and I offered my input. No need for you to take heed.
Ciao T
Agreed, except I'd prefix a "Active Components followed by"...
Hmmm, a bad transformer or capacitor remains a bad one, no matter how you use it. And a bad Op-Amp remains a bad one, pretty much regardless of application. Of course, a good part may still be crippled by bad design.
Now, I do not see why digital receivers or DAC's should be any different.
When all is said and done the 8416 still passes any source jitter below 10KHz, no matter how you configure it, so a nanosecond jitter in (quite common with most transports) mean a nanosecond out, which is basically equal to 13 bit performance from a 16 bit (or more) source.
But again, if you insist on using CS8416 and CS4398 do not let me deter you. You asked for input and I offered my input. No need for you to take heed.
Ciao T
Hi,
No, but I used to use winamp exactly that with my windows mobile phone...
Not bad, but I moved on from such primitivism years ago.
Ciao T
No, but I used to use winamp exactly that with my windows mobile phone...
Not bad, but I moved on from such primitivism years ago.
Ciao T
Hi,
Gosh, that is SO last decade... Actually early last decade at that.
Excellent. If you can, try different regulators for the analogue PSU Pins on the ESS DAC's.
Ciao T
Gosh, that is SO last decade... Actually early last decade at that.
Excellent. If you can, try different regulators for the analogue PSU Pins on the ESS DAC's.
Ciao T
What I meant was, that you´ll probably experience both good and bad results with whatever DAC chip you choose.
Even the worst of them, still is a lot better than any discrete analog design possible.
I´ve experienced very bad results with the CS4398, but by refining and optimizing, I´ve experienced it a killer.
So you probably can do with about most modern DACs.
You are absolutely right... the AE is limited to 16bit and 48kHz. I only see this as a theoretical problem, since I do not have any music recorded at higher bit/sample rates. To be honest.... I really do not know people, to whom this will be a real problem
How much 96kHz/24 bit music do you have??
OK... I guess we all got your point about CS8416. Ias there any chance, we do not have to listen to any more of your anti-CS talk??
I have invited you to come listen to a CS based DAC, that I guarantee will make you change your opinion. I accept that you can not go home from china just for this purpose... But still... Could you consider making some constructive posts instead?? You could start by mentioning a few commercial DAC's, that you believe does sound OK.
Hi,
Gosh, that is SO last decade... Actually early last decade at that.
Ciao T
Written by someone with Vacum Tubes as a preference
Hi,
Also written by some one who has designed USB Audio Inputs into his products since 2005 and who has been using one flavour of PC audio or another since before Y2K...
Ciao T
Written by someone with Vacum Tubes as a preference
Also written by some one who has designed USB Audio Inputs into his products since 2005 and who has been using one flavour of PC audio or another since before Y2K...
Ciao T
any DAC chips has it maximum quality that we can get from it, and in 4398 main limitation is his DCT DAC. Is no limit in analog stage design in 4303,2552,2562,1794,1853,1955,5865 etc, but designing such DACs is much more harder and complex, but sound quality that we can achive is MUCH better
yes, nonaseconds jitter only acceptable if jitter frequencies is below 300-400Hz
I guess we have to accept, that we all have different preferences, and that we will base our argumentation on different values.
In this thread, I generally see 2 main groups:
I see a lot of people arguing against CS4398, based only on technical data, which may not be in the best interest of the sonic performance. If this was the problem, any Vacum Tube based gear, must be the absolut worst sounding solution. A well designed non NFB discrete design is a bit better, and an op-amp with 200dB feedback will be sweet like sugar! Simply because of the distortion of these 3 different topologies.
@ Nazar_Iv:
Please "Nazar_Iv"...: Is this the way you see the world??
In that case, we have some serious problems to discuss... Like the bumble be. In theory it simply cannot fly! Do you see this as true chaos??
When I see you arguing against CS4398, he refers to the fact, that CS4398 has limitation due to the topologi used in the CS4398. Please explain to me, how exactly this results in sonic performance. I don't care about the tech stuff.... Just tell me how the sonic performance is affected by this.
When done, I expect we are done talking about CS4398. If you don't like it, I suggest you spend your time creating your own DAC, instead of wasting it on a DAC, that you do not like.
In this thread, I generally see 2 main groups:
- Those who base their judgement on technical performance
- Those who base their judgement on sonic performance
I see a lot of people arguing against CS4398, based only on technical data, which may not be in the best interest of the sonic performance. If this was the problem, any Vacum Tube based gear, must be the absolut worst sounding solution. A well designed non NFB discrete design is a bit better, and an op-amp with 200dB feedback will be sweet like sugar! Simply because of the distortion of these 3 different topologies.
@ Nazar_Iv:
Please "Nazar_Iv"...: Is this the way you see the world??
In that case, we have some serious problems to discuss... Like the bumble be. In theory it simply cannot fly! Do you see this as true chaos??
When I see you arguing against CS4398, he refers to the fact, that CS4398 has limitation due to the topologi used in the CS4398. Please explain to me, how exactly this results in sonic performance. I don't care about the tech stuff.... Just tell me how the sonic performance is affected by this.
When done, I expect we are done talking about CS4398. If you don't like it, I suggest you spend your time creating your own DAC, instead of wasting it on a DAC, that you do not like.
Hello
The best sounding DAC I have ever heard, a professional one from FRance, is based on the
CS 43122.. I think the CS 4398 is a good choice...
Now I have planned a Reference-DAC with the CS 4398...
I have read you built one with discrete Output- Stage .. Where can I see the Circuit ???
By the way....I dont like LM317 / 337... L 200 is much better ..I do only work with this
Programmable positive regulator... if 2 positive voltages are galvanic seperated
You can get a Dual ( plus minus ) voltage and with this sounding is much better
Than with LM 3317 / 337
The best sounding DAC I have ever heard, a professional one from FRance, is based on the
CS 43122.. I think the CS 4398 is a good choice...
Now I have planned a Reference-DAC with the CS 4398...
I have read you built one with discrete Output- Stage .. Where can I see the Circuit ???
By the way....I dont like LM317 / 337... L 200 is much better ..I do only work with this
Programmable positive regulator... if 2 positive voltages are galvanic seperated
You can get a Dual ( plus minus ) voltage and with this sounding is much better
Than with LM 3317 / 337
well then I am in the first and second group
No, all significantly more difficult than you imagine
just a not good sound. At 5-point scale in the best case it has 3 with minus.
If you dont care about technical details then you will never make a good sounding DAC, if you're lucky there will be a maximum not bad sounding device
ok, If you do not want to listen to advice from people who know more and have bigger experience, it's your choice. And do not need to send me to create DAC, I created a lot of them
goodbye
Last edited:
@ Nazar_Iv
Please explain your argument: "just a not good sound. At 5-point scale in the best case it has 3 with minus."
If the CS4398 really do perform that bad as you "think", and this really is based on intense listening tests, I should be no problem for you, to be more detailed.
We do care about technical specs. And yes, I do believe, that technical specs can give you an idea of how good something will perform. But I do NOT believe, that a DAC with THD rated at -110dB, will always perform better than a DAC rated at -109dB, when talking about sonic performance. If you say -110dB and -40dB... Yeah, you may be able to use these specs
We did some quite intense listening test, during our last DAC project.At that time, PCM1794 was the best specified DAC on the market. However... The CS4398 performed better on the most advanced measurement gear... The ears
The PCM1704K was supposed to be used in our DAC, but even that was not able to perform at the same level as CS4398. Neither was different chips from AKM, Analog Devices and so on...
At the moment we are about to do some sonic perormance tests on the new ES9018. As soon as these are done, we will report back. This may take some weeks, since we actually do perform these tests... In contrast to most audio manufactures I know of
Please explain your argument: "just a not good sound. At 5-point scale in the best case it has 3 with minus."
If the CS4398 really do perform that bad as you "think", and this really is based on intense listening tests, I should be no problem for you, to be more detailed.
We do care about technical specs. And yes, I do believe, that technical specs can give you an idea of how good something will perform. But I do NOT believe, that a DAC with THD rated at -110dB, will always perform better than a DAC rated at -109dB, when talking about sonic performance. If you say -110dB and -40dB... Yeah, you may be able to use these specs
We did some quite intense listening test, during our last DAC project.At that time, PCM1794 was the best specified DAC on the market. However... The CS4398 performed better on the most advanced measurement gear... The ears
The PCM1704K was supposed to be used in our DAC, but even that was not able to perform at the same level as CS4398. Neither was different chips from AKM, Analog Devices and so on...
At the moment we are about to do some sonic perormance tests on the new ES9018. As soon as these are done, we will report back. This may take some weeks, since we actually do perform these tests... In contrast to most audio manufactures I know of
dear audio overlords
why do you believe that your DAC would sound any better or different than others ?
Do you believe that nobody else has used a shunt regulator or a discrete output stage before you ?
You will end up like everybody else,
trying to find a sonic balance between feedback and distortion in the output stage but this is an equation that can not be solved.
The os filter inside that chip will stamp it's sonic signature to the sound and you can do nothing about it.
And so on.
Why waste your time with the 100th incarnation of a CS4398 DAC ?
why do you believe that your DAC would sound any better or different than others ?
Do you believe that nobody else has used a shunt regulator or a discrete output stage before you ?
You will end up like everybody else,
trying to find a sonic balance between feedback and distortion in the output stage but this is an equation that can not be solved.
The os filter inside that chip will stamp it's sonic signature to the sound and you can do nothing about it.
And so on.
Why waste your time with the 100th incarnation of a CS4398 DAC ?
Hi,
You forgot the third group, to which I belong, namely those that base their judgment on sonic AND technical performance.
To me the answer to this dichotomy is obvious (as it would to anyone reading Hegel). The angel Thesis (sonic performance) meets the Demon AntiThesis (technical performance) and the conflict can only be resolved by SynThesis.
Of course, there is more beyond the Heglian three-step, as any illuminised seer (bavarian or not) would tell you. It seems here we in the state of Parenthesis where we arrive when the Synthesis has failed to reconcile the extremes, no doubt being followed soon by Paralysis.
So, I suggest we spend less time arguing towards Paralysis.
It is your Project K + H so do it your way, take what you liked from the suggestions others made, ignore the rest and do your thing. The results will be what you intended or at least stretched to attain.
If most others do not appreciate them, so what - funk that!
So, I'll stop arguing and commend K + H to "Just get it on already!".
Ciao T
Now Playing - Johnny Cash American IV
You forgot the third group, to which I belong, namely those that base their judgment on sonic AND technical performance.
To me the answer to this dichotomy is obvious (as it would to anyone reading Hegel). The angel Thesis (sonic performance) meets the Demon AntiThesis (technical performance) and the conflict can only be resolved by SynThesis.
Of course, there is more beyond the Heglian three-step, as any illuminised seer (bavarian or not) would tell you. It seems here we in the state of Parenthesis where we arrive when the Synthesis has failed to reconcile the extremes, no doubt being followed soon by Paralysis.
So, I suggest we spend less time arguing towards Paralysis.
It is your Project K + H so do it your way, take what you liked from the suggestions others made, ignore the rest and do your thing. The results will be what you intended or at least stretched to attain.
If most others do not appreciate them, so what - funk that!
So, I'll stop arguing and commend K + H to "Just get it on already!".
Ciao T
Now Playing - Johnny Cash American IV
my english is not so good to describe this sound
THD is only one of xxx things that you should know, for example what type of DAC it is parralel(multibit) or serial (DS), what type of parralel dac it is (Integration DAC, String DAC, Floating point DAC, Binary weighted DAC, Dynamic Element Matching DAC, Continuous calibration DAC, R-2R, R-2R Segmented DAC,R-2R Sign Magnitude DAC), what type of DS DAC it is, what DF he use, what type of modulator(single loop,step-back, MASH, feedforward, SDPC, parametrically controlled, Trellis etc), how many bit have quantizier, what type of element mistmatch cancellation is used (DEM, partial DWA, DWA etc, weighted DEM, PWM DEM) what type of DAC (continious time or discrete time, switching cap., current steering, Direct charge transfer, voltage PWM etc) etc etc etc
There is nothing unbelivable, 1794 MUCH more harder to properly implement than 4398, but if all done righ 4398 sounds as "boombox quality" compared to 1794 (5865/1853/2562 and all top parralel dacs)
+1
similar. let them learn themselves
Given your inability to accept that your preference for the CS4398 is just that, a preference, and that those who dissent are not somehow wrong but just have different preferences, it was unwise to to have started talking about it in the first place.
Seems to me you were bound to dismiss anything else so you might as well got on with it and just built the thing. OTOH, if you are doing a TP.....
dear audio overlords
why do you believe that your DAC would sound any better or different than others ?
Do you believe that nobody else has used a shunt regulator or a discrete output stage before you ?
You will end up like everybody else,
trying to find a sonic balance between feedback and distortion in the output stage but this is an equation that can not be solved.
The os filter inside that chip will stamp it's sonic signature to the sound and you can do nothing about it.
And so on.
Why waste your time with the 100th incarnation of a CS4398 DAC ?
This project will probably only be different from others in the analog stage, which is a very nice discrete one.
There will be no shunts in this project, the earlier one has shunts, and no - no commercial DAC I know of has shunts.
Nope this will not sound like everyone elses DAC, due to the design and choice of components for the analog stage.
There wil be no NFB in the output stage.
The OS filter in the DAC will hardly be used, as we might end up with the ESS chip, which does up-sampling, but it might also oversample.
But otherwise of no oversampling is used, you will definately hear the analog brickwall filter, and if no filtering is done, you will hear a lot of clipping clipping in your pre- and power amp, and you might burn your tweeters.
We are checking out ESS for this project.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.