Here's a Few Examples....
DAC DIR9001+TDA1541A 2.0B parallel output OS/NOS
DAC AD1865 AD1865N-K NOS 1.0 NOS
AD1865 x2 differential mode DAC board with reclock USB
Dual DAC AD1955+AD1896 + HDAM x 3 pairs
Thats just a few Ebay Examples, since i spent most of my day reading through this thread and seeing instead of providing the interested people in this thread with a product, there always was a pat on the back and then a kick in the ***.
Sorry guys, but thats just my
when there is NO product or updates.
DAC DIR9001+TDA1541A 2.0B parallel output OS/NOS
DAC AD1865 AD1865N-K NOS 1.0 NOS
AD1865 x2 differential mode DAC board with reclock USB
Dual DAC AD1955+AD1896 + HDAM x 3 pairs
Thats just a few Ebay Examples, since i spent most of my day reading through this thread and seeing instead of providing the interested people in this thread with a product, there always was a pat on the back and then a kick in the ***.
Sorry guys, but thats just my
when there is NO product or updates.So, to make an analogy, you call "intellectual propriety" opening a TV dinner box (dac cip), putting it in the MW (printed board) as per box instructions, then on the table (DAC case) as your mommy tough you, eating it with a fork (DIR chip) and posting the "findings".
I call that just plain using a product that cannot be defined as "open source" since it is nothing new revealed (in terms of intellectual work).
Maybe it's just semantics, don't know.
Yes, I consider this project deadYou can't get enough of a group consensus on what to build, then it seems to have become one designer's baby. Not really an open project.
I would have done a modular DAC design- split up the PSU, the digital receiver, the DAC chip, output stage etc. so people can choose what they want, instead of some single-board.
This project is not dead. We are working on a more DIY friendly version. Also pre-amp and power-amp is almost done.
I understand your modular design apporach, but I do not believe in it.
Achieving the ultimate performance in audio, is a matter of matching the different stages to a synergy where 2 + 2 > 4. That is what we did.
As soon as you make a modular design, you accept that you will never ever achieve near perfect performance. You let the builder make his own compromise, instead of making an ideal product.
Again... think of the Strativarious:
If you make a modular design, with let's say 5 different versions of every single part... How many of these do you think will end up as a Stradivarious??? I say: Very few.... But a whole lot of DIY versions, with diffenrent, but non-perfect performance.
We choose to do the real thing, and finish it 100%. This is the only way we can assure, that the builders get optimum performance.
Some people believe, that making a PCB with the best specified Receiver and DAC chip and no output stage or PSU, is the best solution (and most flexible). Well... I agree to the part about flexible. But.... that is not the way to achieve maximum sonic performance. As mentioned above, this is done by matching the right receiver chip with the right DAC chip, followed by the right output stage... And then making sure the PSU is optimized not just for theoretical performance, but in the way that each single part of the design performs best. And this takes months/years. We finished this job, so that the builder will have maximum performance from day one...
We did NOT choose the best receiver or DAC, as lomg as you only look at specifications. We did try better chips... But the CS8416 and CS4398 was the best sonic performers, in combination with our analog stage, PSU and PCB layout.
I think we have to agree, that we will never agree on this. People are divided into 2 groups.
1 - Thoose who are triggered by tech specs and the idea of a flexible design, where thay can spend years on tweaking (and posting new posts every time to tell us that: "Now it sounds much better than yesterday"... and then even better the next day
).2 - Thoose only focused on sonic performance, and now how it is optained.
Typically people in "1" are more focused on telling how good it sounds, than actually listening to the music. And as soon as something new appears, they buy it and tells that "Now it's much better".
I have for a long time been searching for people building on of these flexible DAC-design, to come by and compare to our DAC. But for some reason, people seem to have all sorts of reasons why not to... But feel free
Last edited:
Just to summarise the idea of this project:
- 100% open source (meaning public schematic, PCB layout and BOM)
- Must perform better than other DIY DAC's, regardless of price.
- Maximum building cost: 199USD including all components, PSU and PCB.
We are not that long from achieving our goal, and more info will come. I expect that I will launch the info both here, and on a dedicated web-site, where we will have more server-MB for building instructions, pictures +++
When the design is finished, I would like to invite people to listen to the DAC, and do A-B test against whatever you may have. Don't care about how overpriced product you have, or how many small modules it is made of... You bring it, our non-flexible DAC will beat it
- 100% open source (meaning public schematic, PCB layout and BOM)
- Must perform better than other DIY DAC's, regardless of price.
- Maximum building cost: 199USD including all components, PSU and PCB.
We are not that long from achieving our goal, and more info will come. I expect that I will launch the info both here, and on a dedicated web-site, where we will have more server-MB for building instructions, pictures +++
When the design is finished, I would like to invite people to listen to the DAC, and do A-B test against whatever you may have. Don't care about how overpriced product you have, or how many small modules it is made of... You bring it, our non-flexible DAC will beat it
Just to summarise the idea of this project:
- 100% open source (meaning public schematic, PCB layout and BOM)
- Must perform better than other DIY DAC's, regardless of price.
- Maximum building cost: 199USD including all components, PSU and PCB.
We are not that long from achieving our goal, and more info will come. I expect that I will launch the info both here, and on a dedicated web-site, where we will have more server-MB for building instructions, pictures +++
When the design is finished, I would like to invite people to listen to the DAC, and do A-B test against whatever you may have. Don't care about how overpriced product you have, or how many small modules it is made of... You bring it, our non-flexible DAC will beat it
Pictures are worth 1000 words...
Show us the progress
BTW guys, I have heard that NDA requirement for the sabre 9012/18 has been scrapped. the datasheets havent been posted publicly yet, but its in the works. not sure if this means that they have another flagship in the works about to be released, or just that so much of the datasheet info has made it into the public domain anyway and they thought they may as well make it official
yeah well thats kinda what I thought for a moment, before I realized that the 9018 has been out for 18 months and the 9012 only a bit less. so while I would be a bit dissapointed that the dac I have been planning and building for over a year has just now as it is nearly finished been outdated, I cant realy blame them for going at that pace, its not that unreasonable for a company that wants to stay on top
We learned not to post to much, before the project is done. A few people in here, are very busy talking bad about the project, while it is stile in progress.
During our last DAC, people started claiming that it sounded very bad (Based on listeningtests), 1½ years before it was even finished
Don't know how they managed to listen to it before it was finished....
That's why the info is a little slow. But when it is done, everything will be public!
We may consider managing some group buy of the PCB to keep the cost down, but that depends on how many interested DIY'ers.
Yes, it will be based on CS4398. This DAC chip has proven to be the best in our listening-tests. We actually hoped to use the PCM1794A, since the digital filter (Which we believe is one of the most important things in a DAC chip), is better in the 1794. But it simply does not perform sonically.
We also have a ESS based DAC... Unfortunately this did not match the CS4398 either, even though data is absolutely GREAT on this chip.
Yes, I don't think anybody has still used the ES9018 to its full potential yet .
It reminds me of Microsoft
This may very well be true! The ES9018 could be a great DAC chip, based on the performance specifications. We just have not yet managed to make it sound as good as the CS4398 chip. But we have not yet given up on it.
I imagine that having set such low standards, it must be quite disheartening to fail to meet them.
And that's why we do not post anything until we have finished the project.
In the meantime i suggest, that Master Of DAC Design, Mr "rfbrw", tells us which DAC chip to use and how to implement in a a complete DAC design, to ensure maximum performance from it. Please tell us... And then... Please provide us with complete documentation to build it. Thanks in advance.
Last edited:
I'm working away on this, slowly slowly. You can have a look at my blog. I agree with the 'Master DAC designer' himself that you can't polish a turd
Incidentally, what led you to your belief that the digital filter is one of the most important things in a DAC? What's wrong with the TI/BB filter which is fixed in the Cirrus implementation? I'd like to follow up on this. Oh and one other thing - how did you implement the I/V on the PCM1794 which led to it 'not performing sonically' ?
I'm working away on this, slowly slowly. You can have a look at my blog. I agree with the 'Master DAC designer' himself that you can't polish a turd
Haven't you watched Mythbusters? You can polish a turd, but it's still a turd
I'm working away on this, slowly slowly. You can have a look at my blog. I agree with the 'Master DAC designer' himself that you can't polish a turd
Incidentally, what led you to your belief that the digital filter is one of the most important things in a DAC? What's wrong with the TI/BB filter which is fixed in the Cirrus implementation? I'd like to follow up on this. Oh and one other thing - how did you implement the I/V on the PCM1794 which led to it 'not performing sonically' ?
Well.... Nothing wrong with the digital filter in the PCM1794A. As I said, it seems even better than the one in CS4398. And that's one of the reasons we wanted to try PCM1794A. But it did not perform as well as the CS4398 when using the ears as the measurement tool.
And that is one of the things we did different. We did NOT choose any part due to technical specifications. Only by ears.
Most designers claim to search for the best possible sonic performance. And in the search of this, they read the datasheets to find the best performer...
I still don't know why people are so busy talking bad about the CS4398. Please tell me: What seems to be the problem????
We could go for a low budget Wolfson DAC... and then suddently, people will claim that our DAC was way better... even without listening to it
It's a mad world...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.