# Is Sabre ES9018 the best DAC chip right now?



## econsumer666

Can you say that DACs based on Sabre ES9018 should be favoured over other configurations like WM8741 and PCM1704UK? I kinda keep reading over and over again that this Sabre chip is currently the best affordable DAC-chip.
   
Reason is, I've just ordered Audio GD DAC 5.2 and started reading after that and I'm now not sure anymore if it was the right decision and maybe I should have ordered *[size=medium][size=x-small]NFB-1.32 instead...[/size][/size]*


----------



## justin w.

Implementation of the DAC chip is more important than the DAC chip itself.  Any of the top chips will do.  The ES9018 is also NOT "affordable".  It costs way more than the top chips from companies like Wolfson, Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic etc.


----------



## PleasantSounds

If you're talking about the affordable range, then the ES9018 is one of the better choices. But the Ref 5.2 is based on the PCM1704UK, which is considered a high-end chip, and is supposed to be in a different league altogether. If budget is not your concern then you made the right choice.


----------



## Currawong

You're worrying too much.


----------



## ehlarson

Quote: 





pleasantsounds said:


> If you're talking about the affordable range, then the ES9018 is one of the better choices. But the Ref 5.2 is based on the PCM1704UK, which is considered a high-end chip, and is supposed to be in a different league altogether. If budget is not your concern then you made the right choice.


 
   
  Yes it's different. It has a completely different design paradigm. Rather old-school actually.
   
  Different as in better is quite another matter. A matter of taste and implementation really.
   
  As far as cost per piece they are pretty similar. The thing is though the Sabre will do a lot more, so by the time you are done the 1704 design will cost more.


----------



## Sapientiam

Quote: 





econsumer666 said:


> Can you say that DACs based on Sabre ES9018 should be favoured over other configurations like WM8741 and PCM1704UK? I kinda keep reading over and over again that this Sabre chip is currently the best affordable DAC-chip.


 
   
  In my view the Sabre is overpriced for what it offers in subjective SQ, its a digital chip so can't cost nearly as much to produce as the PCM1704 yet they're similarly priced. If your primary objective is SQ then you're better off with the PCM1704, or, if you don't need hi-res, a decent implementation of a TDA1545A is just fine and saves a lot of money.


----------



## Clemmaster

The Sabre ES9018 is not solely a DAC. Its an ASIC with patented upsampling and jitter reduction algorithms, embedded S/PDIF receiver and so on... It's also a modular 8 channels DAC.
   
  The technically advanced ES9018 is a great departure from the simplistic PCM1704 r2r mono DAC. One could say, they are diametrically opposite in the DACs realm, in a technical standpoint.
   
  Saying which one is better, quality-wise, is not simple and may not have an unanimous answer (since it depends on pretty much everything else in the gear). One might be easier to implement though, but I'll let the audio designers answer this.


----------



## Sapientiam

As an audio designer myself the PCM1704 is by far the easier of the two to implement. That has a bearing on the SQ as designers don't have limitless time to optimize their layouts and component choices.


----------



## nigeljames

Yes don't be to concerned as to which chip you have the implementation is far more important. The Sabre32 9018 is a great chip and I love my Sabre 9018 chipped NFB7 but don't expect ANY chip to be considered the absolute best and that's before implementation is taken into account.


----------



## ehlarson

Quote: 





sapientiam said:


> As an audio designer myself the PCM1704 is by far the easier of the two to implement. That has a bearing on the SQ as designers don't have limitless time to optimize their layouts and component choices.


 
   
  That's an interesting comment. I've heard the 1704 is hard to implement because of the sensitivity of the grounding of the I/V stage.
   
  All in all, 1704 based DACs tend to be expensive because you need at least 4 DACs to get a balanced design, and the DACs cost about $80 each, at least in the U-K version. Then add in all the additional components that you need vs the 9018 and you are looking at pretty costly part count compared to a DAC designed with the 9018 which since it's 8 channel you only need one at about $40 for a balanced stereo design.
   
  I don't know how big a factor designer time is in the cost of a DAC, I suspect that will depend a lot on the number of units sold.


----------



## ismewor

ES9018 is affordable with all in one design, Many many high-end use 1704 and AKM as well.
  It is how they use the chip, chip itself is not a huge factor.


----------



## keithc

As a somewhat related note, do you guys think there's such a thing as a "common sound" to all DACs using the same chip?
   
  I'm a believer in the implementation, output stage, etc. being key, and that some 1704 DACs are very musical while others are very clinical and lifeless. Yet it seems that a lot of the "hot new" DACs tend to group together and use the same chip, and I've wondered if the reviewers then to just prefer a certain "DAC sound" when I'm trying to interpret their reviews...
   
  Just musing.


----------



## llort swen

Quote: 





justin w. said:


> Implementation of the DAC chip is more important than the DAC chip itself.


 
  Please add this on sticky thread.
  It is discussed since long time ago, and people didn't make it a common sense yet?


----------



## Sapientiam

Quote: 





ehlarson said:


> That's an interesting comment. I've heard the 1704 is hard to implement because of the sensitivity of the grounding of the I/V stage.
> 
> All in all, 1704 based DACs tend to be expensive because you need at least 4 DACs to get a balanced design, and the DACs cost about $80 each, at least in the U-K version. Then add in all the additional components that you need vs the 9018 and you are looking at pretty costly part count compared to a DAC designed with the 9018 which since it's 8 channel you only need one at about $40 for a balanced stereo design.
> 
> I don't know how big a factor designer time is in the cost of a DAC, I suspect that will depend a lot on the number of units sold.


 
   
  Grounding is always a sensitive issue, and yes on the PCM1704 its necessary to pay attention to it for sure. But grounding at higher frequencies is a much bigger issue - compare the symbol rates of the two DAC chips in question. The 1704 can be run NOS, i.e. 44k1. The Sabre runs oversampled by a large factor - 64X is it? Thus if grounding is sensitive on the 1704 (and it is) then its 64X more sensitive on the Sabre. Of course running balanced helps, but getting good CMRR (to reject ground noise) at frequencies above 1MHz is difficult. Add to this the finer process geometry of the Sabre part compared to the TI one - fine geometry CMOS generates much more substantial glitching on the supplies.
   
  A bigger issue than grounding is linearity of the amplifier stage and getting good linearity at 64X OS is that much harder than getting it at 44k1. Which is why you see (hear I suppose!) so much difference in SQ between implementations of the Sabre. A third issue is jitter sensitivity, running NOS means its an issue, but running 64X OS in a noise-shaped system makes this issue a huge one.


----------



## ehlarson

I have heard that jitter is more of an issue with DS chip designs.
   
  Grounding with the 1704 is supposedly particularly difficult because of a servo amp that continually attempts to null the output signal wrt ground.


----------



## ssportclay

The DAC chip is just a part of what to look for. The analog output stage or amplifier is just as important. This is what provides that big involving dynamic punch. Also look for a unit that has an AC power cord inlet in order to install a fat and probably expensive power cord. This does make a difference and never buy a CD player without this feature. This is one of the features that separates the contenders from the pretenders.


----------



## j123my

The DAC chip only tells part of the story. Implementation (i.e. circuitry, power supply, other components) would affect the sound quality as much as the choice of DAC chip itself.


----------



## Chippy99

Quote: 





ssportclay said:


> The DAC chip is just a part of what to look for. The analog output stage or amplifier is just as important. This is what provides that big involving dynamic punch. Also look for a unit that has an AC power cord inlet in order to install a fat and probably expensive power cord. This does make a difference and never buy a CD player without this feature. This is one of the features that separates the contenders from the pretenders.


 
  Sorry to jump in here, but I felt compelled to comment.
   
  The above is fundamentally tripe.  Whereas there can possibly be some justification for a "fat and probably expensive power cord" for a meaty power amp, there is no conceivable justification for such a thing on a DAC.  A nominal 1V output from a DAC into any pre or power power amp - input impedances often 10,000 Ohms or higher - will need fractions milliamp at the output.  The electronics inside the DAC need a few watts at most to drive them properly - again a trivial amount for mains power device.
   
  To suggest that a 120V or 240V power cord rated at say 13amps instead of say 3 amps, can improve the sound even by an infinitessimal amount is completely ludicrous and plain wrong.
   
  Some people suggest RFI suppression by a power cord can improve sound quality.  This is an entirely different discussion (and also wrong, imho),  but nevertheless it at least stands up to some debate.  That a "fat" power cord can improve a DAC's performance is just plain nonsense.


----------



## seekadds

Quote: 





chippy99 said:


> The above is fundamentally tripe.


 
   
  Tripe tasted good in stew.
   
  On a related note, I'm gonna get an M-DAC soon so I can see what the Sabre fuss is about. =)


----------



## wink

A cutting remark?


----------



## yfei

From what I heard from multiple manufactures,  Yes, right now ESS Sabre 9018 is the best chip,  and the is ONLY choice (for making high-end DACs).
Technically why?     I am not EE expert, but of you have 1 hour patience, this video explained everything:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CkyrDIGzOE
   
  Price?  ESS Sabre 9018 is about $40, shouldn't be a problem.  Just a small fraction of the price of final product.    Portable player Hifiman HM-901 has 2 of them inside, priced at $1000.
   
   
   
  Quote: 





econsumer666 said:


> Can you say that DACs based on Sabre ES9018 should be favoured over other configurations like WM8741 and PCM1704UK? I kinda keep reading over and over again that this Sabre chip is currently the best affordable DAC-chip.
> 
> Reason is, I've just ordered Audio GD DAC 5.2 and started reading after that and I'm now not sure anymore if it was the right decision and maybe I should have ordered *[size=medium][size=x-small]NFB-1.32 instead...[/size][/size]*


----------



## catfish

Quote: 





yfei said:


> From what I heard from multiple manufactures,  Yes, right now ESS Sabre 9018 is the best chip,  and the is ONLY choice (for making high-end DACs).
> Technically why?     I am not EE expert, but of you have 1 hour patience, this video explained everything:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CkyrDIGzOE
> 
> Price?  ESS Sabre 9018 is about $40, shouldn't be a problem.  Just a small fraction of the price of final product.    Portable player Hifiman HM-901 has 2 of them inside, priced at $1000.


 
   
   
  None of the $10k+ Dac's use the ESS and there are many reasons why.  Have you heard of MSB they make their own and charge accordingly. Even the Berkley Alpha which gets most praise for mid-fi doesn't use an ESS instead their engineer chose an AD1955 which alows much more advanced proprietary oversampling algorithms andclock/jitter handling.
   
  The ESS is a solid mid-fi chip,  its best feature is the advanced digital attentuation (volume)  which is truley fantastic.  But most are trying to come up with ways to defeat the on board upsampling thru synchronous reclocking.  The sensitivity to clock jitter and low output impedance of the current output have caused troubles for many trying to make a world class product.   The chip has been on the market several years now,  hopefully they will fix some of these issues and release an improved version.  But to say it is the best DAC is a real stretch.


----------



## nigeljames

Quote: 





catfish said:


> 1.None of the $10k+ Dac's use the ESS and there are many reasons why.
> 2. Have you heard of MSB they make their own and charge accordingly.
> 
> Even the Berkley Alpha which gets most praise for mid-fi doesn't use an ESS instead their engineer chose an AD1955 which alows much more advanced proprietary oversampling algorithms andclock/jitter handling.
> ...


 
   
  1. No DAC that uses the ESS chip would need to cost $10k. Even with a top class digital, analogue and power supply
  2. That just means you are paying for MSB's development costs, it does not mean it's chip is actually any good (not that I am saying it is or isn't). Ecomomies of scale will also come into play if they are only making chips for their own products.
   
  However any DAC manufacturer can make any chip sound like ****. As the DAC chip is not the most important aspect of a DAC then it's all moot as what is the best DAC chip especially as we all know that there is no such thing as 'best' anything in audio.


----------



## hifimanrookie

I just read peachtree uses the sabre ess 9023 for their dac-it dac..is that a better chip..never heard anyone using that chip..


----------



## nigeljames

Quote: 





hifimanrookie said:


> I just read peachtree uses the sabre ess 9023 for their dac-it dac..is that a better chip..never heard anyone using that chip..


 
   
  The ess9023 I believe is a lower level chip than the 9018.


----------



## catfish

Quote: 





nigeljames said:


> 1. No DAC that uses the ESS chip would need to cost $10k. Even with a top class digital, analogue and power supply
> 2. That just means you are paying for MSB's development costs, it does not mean it's chip is actually any good (not that I am saying it is or isn't). Ecomomies of scale will also come into play if they are only making chips for their own products.
> 
> However any DAC manufacturer can make any chip sound like ****. As the DAC chip is not the most important aspect of a DAC then it's all moot as what is the best DAC chip especially as we all know that there is no such thing as 'best' anything in audio.


 
  Well said and hence the subject title is a bit naive.  There are DAC's made with 20 year old TDA1541's that sound like a million bucks,  and DAC's made with the ESS9018 that sound like mush (the recent "ebay" boards) and vice-versa.
   
    I would argue that the MSB's are worth paying their development cost if you are a recent lottery winning because they do sound unbelieveable there is something to be said for discrete R2R if you ever get a chance to hear it do,  but owning one is just to expensive for me,  can by a nice car for what they go for.


----------



## zackzack

Meet the new Burson Conductor SL housing the ESS9018 chip
   
http://bursonaudio.com/Burson_Conductor_SL9018.html


----------



## AN94Master

The ibasso dx 100 uses this chip...I've heard that its one of the best portable dap around-second only to the ak240.Is this true though?


----------



## TimSchirmer

Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't the ES9012 be the ideal Sabre dac since it is in stereo and the 9018 is 8 channel?


----------



## Clemmaster

timschirmer said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't the ES9012 be the ideal Sabre dac since it is in stereo and the 9018 is 8 channel?


 
 The 9018 can cluster 4 DAC together to work on one channel (and reduce the noise / increase dynamic range by a factor ~4).
  
On paper the ES9018 has the best figures on the large scale DAC chips market.


----------



## Vandal

I've been lurking around DAC threads, and I have a query. I'm looking to upgrade one of my DAC's, the Audio GD DAC19 DSP, which is PCM1704 based, and single ended. I am looking at the ES9018 based NFB-1 which is a full balanced DAC, to go with my balanced NFB-6.
 While Kingwa has assured me that the NFB-6 can balance the output of the DAC19DSP, since I am using ACSS connects, I do need a bit more dB level, and was wondering if a discrete balanced DAC would be an upgrade in terms of SQ.
  
 Any comments, especially given they're based on two separate DAC chips?


----------



## Vandal

Any comments guys?


----------



## money4me247

vandal said:


> Any comments guys?


 
 don't do it!!! =P


----------



## Clemmaster

Since this is the ES9018 thread (or not, actually), I highly recommend the NFB-7.


----------



## Vandal

Hi Clemmaster, would your recommendation be stay with the PCM1704 or move to the Sabre chip? Either way I need a balanced setup


----------



## nigeljames

vandal said:


> Hi Clemmaster, would your recommendation be stay with the PCM1704 or move to the Sabre chip? Either way I need a balanced setup


 
  
 Not Clemmaster but in answer to your question it would depend on what attributes you value most in your music which is also influenced by the music you listen to.
  
 So what do you listen to and what attributes are the most important to you?


----------



## Vandal

Hi, I listen to a variety of music, but mostly rock, some country, some easy listening with a bit of metal thrown in, but not the new-age heavy stuff. I value clarity, detail, and other than that, am not a bass, or treble head.
  
 What are the attributes of these 2 chips? And is it that noticeable that I would notice it at first listen? BTW I do not have golden ears, and am a normal listener.


----------



## nigeljames

vandal said:


> Hi, I listen to a variety of music, but mostly rock, some country, some easy listening with a bit of metal thrown in, but not the new-age heavy stuff. I value clarity, detail, and other than that, am not a bass, or treble head.
> 
> What are the attributes of these 2 chips? And is it that noticeable that I would notice it at first listen? BTW I do not have golden ears, and am a normal listener.


 
  
 Well given your tastes I would recommend the Sabre32 over the PCM1704.
  
 Although the chip is not the only factor in actual performance or character of the sound I have always found the Sabre32 gives a faster, livelier and more detailed sound than the PCM1704 which often gives a more laid back relaxing sound.
  
 I currently own the NFB-7 and also listen to rock and metal (not the extreme versions) and love my DAC. I have also listened to the Audio-gd Ref 1 and 5.32 and although both are very good could not compete with the NFB-7 with regards speed, detail, dynamics and general excitement and involvement. I have also listened to expensive Naim CD players/DAC's that use the 1704 chip and had the same impression, although not in my system.
  
 If you have not already read it may I direct you to my NFB-7 review (http://www.head-fi.org/t/572385/review-audio-gd-nfb-7) Even if the NFB-7 is not an option it may still give you some points to consider.


----------



## Clemmaster

Yeah nigeljames nailed it.
The only PCM1704 that can compete with the NFB-7 in these aspects is the M7 + offramp-5. We're looking at a $3,500 combo vs a $1,500 standalone DAC.

The Sabre is a much cheaper alternative.
The NFB-7 does not exhibit much (if at all, depending on the upstream gear) of the Sabre shortcomings (weird treble roughness, poor bass definition) that many mid-tier DAC have (e.g. Yulong DA8). It has a very lively/impactful sound but is not bright or glary.


----------



## preproman

I'm serious thinking about getting the NFB-7 and keeping the Master 7.  These DACs are really the best bang for your buck around.  I like the high part count and the special attention he pays to the power supply section.  
  
 One really down not need to spend a fortune on a DAC for good SQ.  
  
 Besides it will be good to have a Saber DAC in the house to see what all this BS is about harsh treble.  I really don't think Kingwa would put out anything with a major flaw.  The output stage will more than likely take care of that.


----------



## Clemmaster

What about the AMR?


----------



## nigeljames

clemmaster said:


> Yeah nigeljames nailed it.
> The only PCM1704 that can compete with the NFB-7 in these aspects is the M7 + offramp-5. We're looking at a $3,500 combo vs a $1,500 standalone DAC.
> 
> The Sabre is a much cheaper alternative.
> The NFB-7 does not exhibit much (if at all, depending on the upstream gear) of the Sabre shortcomings (*weird treble roughness, poor bass definition*) that many mid-tier DAC have (e.g. Yulong DA8). It has a very lively/impactful sound but is not bright or glary.


 
  
 I have always considered bass definition & control a Sabre32 specialty, especially compared to some 1704 chipped dacs I have heard.
  
 I do agree though that the treble is one of the first things to go with a poor Sabre32 design.


----------



## preproman

clemmaster said:


> What about the AMR?


 
  
  
 It stays as well


----------



## Vandal

OK. So the NFB-1 is balanced as well, and for 650$ but half the price of the NFB-7. What are the crucial differences I would be missing on? I have read terms like TXCO and such, but can't make much of the differences out. How noticeable would they be on say a balanced HD650, or AKG702, RS1i?


----------



## isquirrel

I have been trying out some high end DAC's recently and that's bought me to ask the question of myself and others what is the best method, FPGA or more traditional off the shelf chips.
  
 The conclusion I have come to is I am no expert on DAC chips however I'm not sure how you can determine how a chip sounds in isolation without having it converted back into analogue.

And I would imagine that what actually determines the sound quality is how the DAC is executed and not just the individual components and chips used. You could have a good chip sound average in a DAC unless the rest of the DAC is executed properly.
  
The only valid test for me is listening to it and letting my ears and heart decide.
  
I am currently trying out the Chord DX1000 which has the same DAC as the QBD76 and comparing it to my Hugo. I have a Gryphon Kalliope arriving next week for a trial, I hear that has one of the best if not the best implementation of the Sabre 9018.


----------



## Stereolab42

isquirrel said:


> I have been trying out some high end DAC's recently and that's bought me to ask the question of myself and others what is the best method, FPGA or more traditional off the shelf chips.


 
  
 Off-the-shelf. The FPGA DACs are all hype and no substance. The task of a modern DAC is too complex to be properly done solo by one guy with a bunch of odd theories and a Xilinx.


----------



## leeperry

I haven't heard it with its ASRC disabled but when enabled its shrill sounding metallic trebles are unbearable to my ears....I'm big enough to upsample to 384kHz should I want to, TYVM.


----------



## Clemmaster

stereolab42 said:


> Off-the-shelf. The FPGA DACs are all hype and no substance. The task of a modern DAC is too complex to be properly done solo by one guy with a bunch of odd theories and a Xilinx.


 
 Of course it is feasible. Do you think Rob Watt did it in one week? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 The theory is right, perfect reconstruction can be achieved with infinite length sinc reconstruction filter. Anything below that is an approximation. The more taps, the closest to 'perfect' reconstruction you get.
  
 Now, it's obviously not the only recipe for good sound. But the theory does not lie.


----------



## isquirrel

leeperry said:


> I haven't heard it with its ASRC disabled but when enabled its shrill sounding metallic trebles are unbearable to my ears....I'm big enough to upsample to 384kHz should I want to, TYVM.


 

 Sorry not sure which chip you are referring to ?


----------



## TimSchirmer

The best Sabre DAC I've heard was definetly the Apogee Symphony. That said, there are tons of Wolfson and Cirrus Logic based DAC's out there that sound amazing too.


----------



## Currawong

stereolab42 said:


> isquirrel said:
> 
> 
> > I have been trying out some high end DAC's recently and that's bought me to ask the question of myself and others what is the best method, FPGA or more traditional off the shelf chips.
> ...


 
  
 FPGAs aren't used as DACs, they are custom programmed to do the filtering etc. before the digital data is sent to the DAC.
 The companies that use them tend to be those with engineers that have been designing DACs for decades that don't want to be limited to whatever filters and options that are built into the DA chips. 
  
 Back on topic though, I've found less than stellar Sabre-based DACs make the music somewhat "flat" and dull. The best results I had with a Sabre DAC, ironically was with one that had that very problem, the Calyx DAC 24/192. Using a better power source than USB power (which it uses) and an Audiophilleo 1, the results were very good.


----------



## boatheelmusic

I am thrilled with Grace's Sabre implementation in my new m920. 

Outstanding.

And I didn't previously care for Sabre dacs.


----------



## Turn&cough

The Invicta Mirus uses FPGA and a pair of 9018s. It was designed by the same people behind the 9018 chip so implementation should be optimal.
  
 I haven't heard it yet but apparently it sounds phenomenal eclipsing the FPGA only Hugo.
  
 Unfortunately it's out of my budget range.


----------



## isquirrel

turn&cough said:


> The Invicta Mirus uses FPGA and a pair of 9018s. It was designed by the same people behind the 9018 chip so implementation should be optimal.
> 
> I haven't heard it yet but apparently it sounds phenomenal eclipsing the FPGA only Hugo.
> 
> Unfortunately it's out of my budget range.


 

 I have heard the Mirus in my system against the Hugo, it did some things better, not all. I really wanted it to be the solution for me. It did not have the natural analog like ease that the Hugo has or the sense of air. It did some things better, others on a par, but it did not engage me the same way as Hugo. My feeling, and I could be wrong is that the analog stages were not all that they could be. The Kalliope should present the Sabre 9018 chip in its bests light. 
  
 I am beginning to think that Hugo is going to be sitting on my desk for a while. I am going to try the Gyhopn Kalliope in the next couple of weeks. Unfortunately the dealer has sold the demo unit, so I will have to wait for a new unit to ship. I know the dealer very well and I have owned high end DAC's like the Audio Note DAC 5 signature, I am told the Kalliope makes that sound poor, so I have high expectations.
  
 The real comparison would be between the Nagra HD (FPGA), the new Chord QBD 76  (when thats released) (FPGA) and the Kalliope (Sabre 9018). Rarified products indeed.


----------



## Turn&cough

I thought the Hugo was at the very limit of what I would(could) ever spend on a DAC. The Nagra, Kalliope, etc fall into the unattainable dream gear category.


----------



## ronito6

Speak that truth brother.
  
 Considering all the components that an electric current has to channel through before it becomes a signal, the thickness of the cord makes little difference in the end.
  
 Withstanding the mains voltage and amperage is all a power cord needs to do.
  
 Look at what McIntosh provides it's dacs for a power source.


----------



## Stereolab42

I note that the new Gryphon Kalliope DAC uses two ES9018s, and it retails for $26k.


----------



## jusbe

stereolab42 said:


> I note that the new Gryphon Kalliope DAC uses two ES9018s, and it retails for $26k.


 
  
 The cost is partly a feature of their brand and target audience economics, but also probably because they paid a lot of attention to things that matter: power supplies, audio section, filtering, clock functionality. If specific attention is paid to these and the attention is good and/or innovative, great results can be achieved.
  
 That said, I much prefer the sound of a well implemented 1704K (using Lite Audio LT-1, DAC 83 and I2S) to my experiences of the Sabre chipsets thusfar (Auralic Vega, Oppo 105, PS Audio) - but I guess that's personal.
  
 Aside from the charms of NOS DACs, the only other 'reasonably' priced DAC that has my attention currently, is the forthcoming Schiit Yggdrasil.


----------



## jodgey4

The Schiit Yggdrasil and Bottlehead DAC both seem to have a great approach to handling sampling and filters... I think DACs in the next two years should change quite a bit as these ideas trickle down. The ES9018 is great, but if an engineer knows what he's doing, he could make another chip surpass it. And if that same engineer is told to use the buzzword compliant ES9018 and isn't comfortable with it... problems ensue.


----------



## isquirrel

Listened to the Kalliope at length and liked it, you could hear its refinement, agree with the comments about its intended market, it had that Gryphon house sound.
  
 Did everything well, sounded processed and as though it was just doing its job, it didn't involve me emotionally.


----------



## oculus

The difference between correctly implemented chips is so subtle, its hard to really tell the difference.  I have an low end wolfson chip based DAC (nfb 12) and a mid priced R2R (audio gd ref 10.32) and the difference is there but its minor.  Yes the 10.32 is better but so is the amping on that dac.
  
 Is the difference worth the 1500 dollar difference probably not but we all want to believe there is something better.   I am at my end game now after upgrading to HD800 (balanced) with ref 10.32.  I really dont think spending more money will/can make a hearable difference.


----------



## jusbe

isquirrel said:


> Listened to the Kalliope at length and liked it, you could hear its refinement, agree with the comments about its intended market, it had that Gryphon house sound.
> 
> Did everything well, sounded processed and as though it was just doing its job, it didn't involve me emotionally.


 
  
 Interesting. This has reliably been my response to ESS DACs.
  
 The last time I compared one (Vega) to another (Accustic Arts, whose design - R2R, 1704 - was not revealed to me until I googled it), the French horns on a track from Kathleen Battle's 'Bel Canto' sounded plain wrong. The ESS seemed to be having difficulty recombining all of the harmonics correctly and continuously, making the high frequency tones seemingly undulate and shift while notes were played. This was especially apparent on long, sustained tones.
  
 By comparison, my brain had to interpret far less (if at all) that the sounds I was hearing were from a French horn - when listening to the 1704 DAC (or one of my 1704K or 1541A DACs at home). Tones swelled and filled the room convincingly. Speakers were ceramic dome affairs from Marten, and cruel to incompetent sound.


----------



## isquirrel

jusbe said:


> Interesting. This has reliably been my response to ESS DACs.
> 
> The last time I compared one (Vega) to another (Accustic Arts, whose design - R2R, 1704 - was not revealed to me until I googled it), the French horns on a track from Kathleen Battle's 'Bel Canto' sounded plain wrong. The ESS seemed to be having difficulty recombining all of the harmonics correctly and continuously, making the high frequency tones seemingly undulate and shift while notes were played. This was especially apparent on long, sustained tones.
> 
> By comparison, my brain had to interpret far less (if at all) that the sounds I was hearing were from a French horn. Tones swelled and filled the room convincingly. Speakers were ceramic dome affairs from Marten, and cruel to incompetent sound.


 

 That is what I was hearing, the interesting thing is that I had Macintosh D100 & an Invicta Mirus here which have the same Sabre 9018 chip, I didn't like those either, and they were lacking when compared to a Chord Hugo (FPGA) when I heard the Gryphon it had that same sound that the D100 & Mirus had albeit it was far more refined. 
  
 I understand that you can't hear DAC chips only there implementation but I don't think that's true as all three of the Sabre 9018 DAC's I have had similar characteristics. 
  
 I bought a DAC based on R2R tech, it sounded the best by fair degree to my ears.
  
 The caveat here is that everyone has their preferences. I went with mine.


----------



## jodgey4

From what I understand, R2R should almost always be superior, the chips are just very expensive. Though, for the Sigma-Delta chips, you probably put in enough stuff to make them sound decent that you might end up not saving that much .
  
*THIS WAS MY 1000th post WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have no life!*


----------



## isquirrel

jodgey4 said:


> From what I understand, R2R should almost always be superior, the chips are just very expensive. Though, for the Sigma-Delta chips, you probably put in enough stuff to make them sound decent that you might end up not saving that much .
> 
> *[COLOR=800000]THIS WAS MY 1000th post WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have no life![/COLOR]*




Congrats on your 1000th post !


----------



## jusbe

jodgey4 said:


> From what I understand, R2R should almost always be superior, the chips are just very expensive. Though, for the Sigma-Delta chips, you probably put in enough stuff to make them sound decent that you might end up not saving that much .
> 
> *THIS WAS MY 1000th post WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have no life!*


 
  
 Watch out, I think your keyboard has jitter...


----------



## jusbe

isquirrel said:


> .../
> 
> I understand that you can't hear DAC chips only there implementation but I don't think that's true as all three of the Sabre 9018 DAC's I have had similar characteristics.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I agree with you, and realise there is a limit to that argument. My experience suggests that the surrounding circuits will clearly make a difference, and depending on your hearing and preferences, the filter/clock/psu/output stage can sway listeners one way or another. That said, it will still be the same decoding engine or mathematics at the centre of it all, as the surrounding components can really only enhance (at best) or mask (at worst/best?) the core expression of the DAC at hand.
  
 I wish Ti or BB, or even Philips would make nice R2Rs again. It seems a few, bold designers are hanging on to well-known older designs - or even bolder (like Metrum and others) branching off into new parts bins which service other markets in the hope of finding fresh R2R gold. I'm with these new (NOS?) pioneers.


----------



## fidelia91

Have you guys been keeping up with the Pono reviews? Seem pretty damning...there just doesn't seem to be a noticeable difference on a consistent basis:
  
  
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/pono-player-review-a-tall-refreshing-drink-of-snake-oil/
  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/02/05/neil-young-raises-6-2-million-releases-a-portable-music-player-called-pono-and-my-4-year-old-cant-tell-the-difference/
  
 Could it have to do with the DAC and implementation?


----------



## fidelia91

Have you guys been keeping up with the Pono reviews? Doesn't seem to be a difference on a consistent basis. Could it be related to the DAC or the implementation of the DAC?


----------



## money4me247

fidelia91 said:


> Have you guys been keeping up with the Pono reviews? Doesn't seem to be a difference on a consistent basis. Could it be related to the DAC or the implementation of the DAC?




well, higher sampling bit rates does not cause an audible difference... soooo..... the whole product is based on kinda iffy principles imo.


----------



## fidelia91

I mean, it's hard to tell the difference between 256/320 kbps and CD Quality (16/44), but 256/320 vs High Res (24/96) should be obvious on a pair of above avg. headphones or speakers.


----------



## jodgey4

If you can't hear the difference between 256 and 320... there's no way on earth you could hear anything 'better' than Redbook. That means you can't hear noise floor and high frequencies... neither of which are even helped by higher sampling rates given what we know about the human ear. Hearing a difference with hi-res is literally impossible unless your DAC handles these things all differently (AKA bad DAC), or the hi-res files are mastered differently.


----------



## money4me247

fidelia91 said:


> I mean, it's hard to tell the difference between 256/320 kbps and CD Quality (16/44), but 256/320 vs High Res (24/96) should be obvious on a pair of above avg. headphones or speakers.




other way around i think. can maybe tell a difference going from mp3 to cd... but after that not really. so cd to hi resolution difference more d.t different master than sample or bit rate. samplin rate at 44 already is perfect. no additional info added by uping the sampling rate to 96.

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html


----------



## nephilim32

fidelia91 said:


> Have you guys been keeping up with the Pono reviews? Doesn't seem to be a difference on a consistent basis. Could it be related to the DAC or the implementation of the DAC?




I have. I smell a marketing gimmick indeed!


----------



## Clemmaster

jodgey4 said:


> If you can't hear the difference between 256 and 320... there's no way on earth you could hear anything 'better' than Redbook. That means you can't hear noise floor and high frequencies... neither of which are even helped by higher sampling rates given what we know about the human ear. Hearing a difference with hi-res is literally impossible unless your DAC handles these things all differently (AKA bad DAC), or the hi-res files are mastered differently.


 
 What about temporal aspect?


----------



## jodgey4

clemmaster said:


> What about temporal aspect?


 
 I've heard the claims...  I'd have to read into it more...
 If somebody wants to supply me some Redbook and hi-res I could test my own ears and get back to ya .


----------



## Clemmaster

jodgey4 said:


> I've heard the claims...  I'd have to read into it more...
> If somebody wants to supply me some Redbook and hi-res I could test my own ears and get back to ya .


 
 You only need Hi-Res and down-sample it yourself to guarantee you're comparing the same master.


----------



## jodgey4

Yes, but I have no hi-res. I was just trying for free music .


----------



## money4me247

tidal has a high res vs mp3 test on their website, tho i heard he mp3s may not be he best quality so easier to tell the diff


----------



## Currawong

The problems with both the pro and anti-high res arguments is that they ignore the real issues that brought them about in the first place: The hardware. 
  
 Once manufacturers had gotten over the initial problems with CD players and developed very good DA technology including good R2R converters, the market went insane with high-res hype, causing manufacturers to abandon the good technology for cheaper and _technologically inferior_ converters, purely to be able to put that they were 192k capable on their DACs. Customers now show favour towards the more mellow-sounding SACD players, something which is _a result of how the digital is converted back to analogue in the players and not the storage method itself_, when really they could have found what they were looking for by buying the now cheap, second-hand R2R-DAC players. 
  
 Paralleling these events were issues with digital mastering, resulting in many CD pressings from back in the day sounding awful compared to their vinyl counterparts. Again, _this was a result of the hardware used_. Of course using a good ADC now on an original master tape, even converting it to only CD quality will have excellent results, but this hasn't stopped the hype over high-res re-mastering. To a degree, I reckon the problem wouldn't have come about if the CD standard had been 20/48 instead of 16/44.1, since respectively the increase in bit depth and resolution resolves the issues of dithering and audible digital filter artifacts, _at least the latter of which is an issue with hardware and not the digital data itself!_ 
  
 So while I don't think that the whole hype over high-res remastering doesn't have some merit, I think so not because it is high-res, but because the industry went backwards with their hardware designs, _making_ it relevant as a consequence.


----------



## jusbe

fidelia91 said:


> Have you guys been keeping up with the Pono reviews? Doesn't seem to be a difference on a consistent basis. Could it be related to the DAC or the implementation of the DAC?


 

 It's more likely to be a function of indifferent mastering and limited audio amplifier capabilities. DACs, decoding and data-rates are only part of the story for good digital sound.


----------



## jusbe

For an example of what I mean, and the veritable 'dog's dinner' that hi-res digital is threatening to become, look here at this Xivero-based dissection of an hi-res download of a track from Beck's recent album.
  
 Not good. At all.


----------



## jusbe

currawong said:


> Once manufacturers had gotten over the initial problems with CD players and developed very good DA technology including good R2R converters, the market went insane with high-res hype, causing manufacturers to abandon the good technology for cheaper and _technologically inferior_ converters, purely to be able to put that they were 192k capable on their DACs. Customers now show favour towards the more mellow-sounding SACD players, something which is _a result of how the digital is converted back to analogue in the players and not the storage method itself_, when really they could have found what they were looking for by buying the now cheap, second-hand R2R-DAC players.


 
  
 Exactly what I and other music-lovers have done - using good R2R DACs, both old and new. We have R2R players in the form of the Cambridge Audio CD3 (4x 1541A) as well as the more recent Lite Audio LT-1 + DAC83 system (4x 1704K).
  
 Not going to shift anytime soon either, as the whole mastering element (and the related loudness wars) are now a serious impediment to my desire to embrace more recent digital DAC tech.


----------



## evillamer

Is there a thing as R2R Master race? Like how there's a PC Master race


----------



## EscritorJuan

The LampizatOr Amber DAC Plus, which is tube-based, uses the Sabre ES9018 and runs roughly $2,300, currently.  I pitted it against the Abbingdon Music Research DP-777 DAC and the Hegel HD-12 DSD DAC in A/B comparisons and liked it better.  In fact, I actually wrote a review on it.


----------



## volly

Any thoughts of this dac with the ES9018D chip?
  
http://hifimediy.com/9018D-dac


----------



## jusbe

escritorjuan said:


> The LampizatOr Amber DAC Plus, which is tube-based, uses the Sabre ES9018 and runs roughly $2,300, currently.  I pitted it against the Abbingdon Music Research DP-777 DAC and the Hegel HD-12 DSD DAC in A/B comparisons and liked it better.  In fact, I actually wrote a review on it.


 

 Cool.


----------



## dglow

The Twisted Pear Buffalo IIs and IIIs are excellent 9018 DACs. The Sabre itself is on a board independent from the line stage, which lets you mix and match the latter: e.g. op-amp vs. fully-discrete design. Power is carefully managed throughout, with special regulators feeding the 9018 and independent, shunt-based power supplies for the digitial and analog circuits.
  
 The analog boards are fully balanced amplifiers. They'll feed line-level into an amp, but can also – by routing around a resistor – drive lower-powered cans directly. My Grados sing off of it. SE output is also available with a summing circuit.
  
 It's all DIY, of course, but I see completed kits go up for sale now and then.


----------



## aqsw

escritorjuan said:


> The LampizatOr Amber DAC Plus, which is tube-based, uses the Sabre ES9018 and runs roughly $2,300, currently.  I pitted it against the Abbingdon Music Research DP-777 DAC and the Hegel HD-12 DSD DAC in A/B comparisons and liked it better.  In fact, I actually wrote a review on it.



I own the HD12, but that Lampi is just calling me!
Abbington doesnt have a chance!


----------



## preproman

I had the DP-777 and a Lampi L4 G4 in at the same time.  I like the DP-777 over the Lampi by a really large margin.  That particular lampi sounded thick and muddy.


----------



## aqsw

preproman said:


> I had the DP-777 and a Lampi L4 G4 in at the same time.  I like the DP-777 over the Lampi by a really large margin.  That particular lampi sounded thick and muddy.



hHave you tried your 777 agsinst the Hegel?

Juan rates them

LAMPI Amber
HEGEL HG12
777

How would you rate them.

Ive never heard the Lampi or 777. 

The Lampi just checks off all I want in a dac. I love tubes.

I just could not justify the price of the 777. Talk about diminishing returns. I feel that way on the Lampi to Hegel, but Im willing to keep both of them.


----------



## preproman

I never heard the Hegel.  But the Lampi Ambrer is the lowest tier DAC they sell.  The AMR should be able to beat it.  Now the Lampi Big 7 may be a different story.  AMR has the SE out now as well.


----------



## borizm

I strongly prefer AD1955 over other delta-sigmas like ES9018, WM8740 and WM8741. From my experience, ES9018 in my Audio-GD is no better than any Cirrus or Wolfson - just different, but sonically boring, not for an audiophile at all. I didn't test delta-sigma or advanced segment PCMs from TI, and PCM1794 is probably also very very good too, so it might be the AD1955 vs PCM1794 contest (both have I-out, however 1mA vs 8mA).
 AD1955 is a masterpiece in modern mediocre audio. Maybe I should get or build the better implementation for ES9018, but both are still inferior to old multibits with I-out (current output).
  
 Nevertheless the best DACs for me right now are old multibits PCM1701, PCM1702, PCM58, PCM56, TDA1543, TDA1545A, and TDA1541, and maybe PCM63 and PCM1704, but I didn't correct electronics of the player with them yet, so I'm not sure.


----------



## money4me247

ad1955 is what is found in the emotiva stealth iirc right?


----------



## goodvibes

borizm said:


> I strongly prefer AD1955 over other delta-sigmas like ES9018, WM8740 and WM8741. From my experience, ES9018 in my Audio-GD is no better than any Cirrus or Wolfson - just different, but sonically boring, not for an audiophile at all. I didn't test delta-sigma or advanced segment PCMs from TI, and PCM1794 is probably also very very good too, so it might be AD1955 vs PCM1794 contest (both have Iout, however 1mA vs 8mA).
> AD1955 is a masterpiece in moder mediocre audio. Maybe I should get or build the better implementation for ES9018, but both are still inferior to old multibits with Iout (current output).
> 
> Nevertheless the best DACs for me right now are old multibits PCM1701, PCM1702, PCM58, PCM56, TDA1543, TDA1545A, and TDA1541, and maybe PCM63 and PCM1704, but I didn't correct electronics of the player with them yet, so I'm not sure.


 
 I tend to agree but of the delta/sigmas, I like the PCM179x which I'd take over the 16 bit units as I truly prefer 24 bit and that series can have some PRAT as it's a bit of a hybrid. Of course all these need a bit of massaging to get the most from. We're more sensitive to time errors (D/S) vs amplitude errors (R2R). DSD falls into the D/S group. It's a polite sound that I'm not as fond of. Best DAC I've heard uses 1704s with unique jitter rejection multiple clocks and outboard dedicated filters. Can play up to 768 natively.


----------



## jusbe

goodvibes said:


> I tend to agree but of the delta/sigmas, I like the PCM179x which I'd take over the 16 bit units as I truly prefer 24 bit and that series can have some PRAT as it's a bit of a hybrid. Of course all these need a bit of massaging to get the most from. We're more sensitive to time errors (D/S) vs amplitude errors (R2R). DSD falls into the D/S group. It's a polite sound that I'm not as fond of. Best DAC I've heard uses 1704s with unique jitter rejection multiple clocks and outboard dedicated filters. Can play up to 768 natively.


 

 Which 1704 DAC was that?


----------



## goobicii

goodvibes said:


> We're more sensitive to time errors (D/S)




can you explain to me how is high quality Sigma Delta dac with filter that doesnt affect audible spectrum affect timing more than R2R dac? For example Benchmark DAC 2


----------



## Stereolab42

R2R DACs are a fad. They are no better than good delta-sigma DACs at equivalent price points. The Ygg is an excellent DAC for sure, but did not do anything extra for me over any Sabres in the same bracket.


----------



## Clemmaster

Are you using an amp, or headphones?


----------



## defbear

Does anyone think either R2R or DS chips benefit from Burn-in. I have an Emotiva Dac-1 that sounds great with a variety of amps. I do not believe the Dac-1 is going to change much with use. In my "Burn-in Belief System" I think my HDVD800 isn't going to change much either. But I know my R2R based Master 11 is going to benefit from use. It sounds better if left on for a few hours before listening also. And I think my Bifrost Uber will burn in with use as its a Schitt. A lot of owners think Schitt products benefit with use. 
Hey, after listening to my HD800's for a few months I cant believe how much bigger the Soundstage is in my Toyota Camry. I don't think my Camry's sound system burned in even though the Camry gets better gas milage than when it was new. Perhaps it is We who burn-in.


----------



## jodgey4

It's not so much the chips, as it is the rest of the components - things like capacitors really need to settle in sometimes, depending on what's used. Class A amps usually run best hot as well, so I leave my Class A gear on as much as possible.


----------



## FFBookman

I find that fewer and fewer people interested in audio understand signal chain as the years pass.  Perhaps digital is confusing them, I'm not sure. I actually went to school for some of this, and then have a few decades of practical experience on top of that.
  
 Signal chain theory says that nothing down the chain can actually improve anything above it. Therefore the start of the chain and the first couple 'links' are the most critical. 
  
 This is most clearly broken when people say "buy better speakers/headphones" to render lossy files through an integrated circuit player.  That's plain BS and lots of money is made off of suckers.
  
 The source must first be the highest quality available. If you've intentionally compromised the source file then no DAC, amp, tube, wire, or speaker is going to actually help much. This is also known as "shining a turd".
  
 The DAC must render the file properly, and the handoff to analog is critical. The analog circuit can of course be built with a variety of qualities, and many modern people simply believe that a $4 chip can do what a purpose-built discreet amp can do. Or it can get "close enough", which is another way to say "good enough but not the best".
  
  
 The dirty little secret is that most people's speakers (minus earbuds) could render much better than they do if driven properly. They are fed garbage most of the day so they return garbage. I'd put my consumer speakers playing 24bit files rendered on a ponoplayer or similarly competent player against high-end speakers playing iPhone mp3's or streaming.  But that's the lay of the land right now - lots of money in speakers, lots of money in outboard DAC's, lots of money in cabling, lots of spirit and music killed by loudness and horrible mixing for restricted formats. 
  
 I think the new little DAP's are making the audiophile types sweat. Letting people enjoy hi-res mobile playback for under $1k and no extra hassle (no snobbery) is good for the world, but maybe not so good for the entrenched players.


----------



## nephilim32

ffbookman said:


> I find that fewer and fewer people interested in audio understand signal chain as the years pass.  Perhaps digital is confusing them, I'm not sure. I actually went to school for some of this, and then have a few decades of practical experience on top of that.
> 
> Signal chain theory says that nothing down the chain can actually improve anything above it. Therefore the start of the chain and the first couple 'links' are the most critical.
> 
> ...




This is a great post. "Shinning a turd?' Absolutely true. I feel most of what you've said here is very true and I've experimented with a lot of playback files and the reality for me is that even 24/48 LPCM is really as good as it gets with the right equipment. I have also learned that there are no 'shortcuts' in building a an audio chain that is of great quality....sources (music files) included!! 
Anyhow. Well said and yes 'signal chain' or the cleanliness of it, is incredibly important. I bought the Burson soloist because it only uses 24 components in its signal pathway chain. Most OP amps use 54+!! Yikes! Thank god for class A amps, but let them get hot and they will song even more. It's a thing of beauty.


----------



## tf10charged

Sennheiser orpheus 2 $55k headphone &dac/amp is using this es9018!


----------



## jodgey4

As if people buying the Orpheus don't already have a better DAC... lol.


----------



## borizm

Despite my previous mixed feeling about musicality of ES9018 based on the experience with entry-level Audio-GD DAC+headamp (no-loopback, no-opamp, A-class output), I must confess that I have recently bought old flagship-killer: Meizu MX4 Pro phablet/smartphon with mobile version of ES9018 and this small device have surprised me a lot in a positive way. Meizu MX4 Pro sounds really natural without any observed technical sounding artifacts. The sound is sometimes a little too bright, but in acceptable way (not an irritatning-brite). Sounds much better than ES9023 based, cheap, but quite good SMSL M2 (USB DAC) on the line-out (headamp in it sounds in little technical, dirty-like way and can't be fully accepted in the long term, so it's wise to skip it).
 Meizu MX4 Pro can drive various of the headphone types including including even 8 Ohm DT48, 50 Ohm HE-6 to quite enough loud level, and very easily all 250 and 600 Ohms. The SQ is really good - maybe not as good and realistic as in case in old multibit DACs and no-loopback discrete approach with deep A-class output stage, but good enough, I can risk that it's event can be described as a superior SQ in a category of such a small devices.


----------



## tf10charged

I guess thats why orpheus doesnt come with a dac and amp then.

Oh wait. Why does it still comes with a dac and amp.....hmmmmm


----------



## JIGF

jusbe said:


> Which 1704 DAC was that?


 
  
 the TI PCM1704


----------



## jusbe

jigf said:


> the TI PCM1704


 Sure. No, I meant which convertor? Sorry if I was not clear.


----------



## Happy Camper

I didn't read through all of this thread but we are told there is no bearing on sonics in the digital realm. It's in the analog area that you impact sonics. This is why the mention of implementation being the key. So please explain why the DAC impacts the sound? I've heard it said each maker has a house sound.


----------



## borizm

You probably right with "Tube DAC".
 I've already modified a few CDPs (all of them had 2x PCM56/61 or better) by removing all op-amps and providing some discrete I/V similar in sound signature to a tube. Of course doing something with a typical OS was a second crucial part of the modification - for me it was the best to remove and create the NOS or put some better OS IC. Sounds fantastic.
  
 About WM8741 I'm not sure - sounds too much technical to me, or it was a bad design which I've heard. WM8741 is a "voltage output" DAC, so it has 4 op-amps (or similar staff) build-in in it and there in not a possibility to improve it. Low voltage and "voltage output" makes me worry about possible SQ result even after the perfect modification.
  
 I wouldn't put TDA1541 and WM8741 to the same basked for the other reason.
 TDA1541 is a multibit R2R, NOS, Iout, 16bit (not very linear, but very natural), and WM8741 is a delta-sigma (less natural by the design), with some OS build-in (can have a signature determined by OS), 24 bit (more precise).


----------



## dharma

would this and similar be somehow useful? https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/r2r-for-the-rest-of-us/


----------



## therealbene

now that Sabre has released the new 9038 PRO series, the 9018 is no longer the best, by definition.


----------



## FFBookman

9038? Fuhgettaboutit!


----------



## FFBookman

borizm said:


> Despite my previous mixed feeling about musicality of ES9018 based on the experience with entry-level Audio-GD DAC+headamp (no-loopback, no-opamp, A-class output), I must confess that I have recently bought old flagship-killer: Meizu MX4 Pro phablet/smartphon with mobile version of ES9018 and this small device have surprised me a lot in a positive way. Meizu MX4 Pro sounds really natural without any observed technical sounding artifacts. The sound is sometimes a little too bright, but in acceptable way (not an irritatning-brite). Sounds much better than ES9023 based, cheap, but quite good SMSL M2 (USB DAC) on the line-out (headamp in it sounds in little technical, dirty-like way and can't be fully accepted in the long term, so it's wise to skip it).
> Meizu MX4 Pro can drive various of the headphone types including including even 8 Ohm DT48, 50 Ohm HE-6 to quite enough loud level, and very easily all 250 and 600 Ohms. The SQ is really good - maybe not as good and realistic as in case in old multibit DACs and no-loopback discrete approach with deep A-class output stage, but good enough, I can risk that it's event can be described as a superior SQ in a category of such a small devices.


 
 Borizm thanks for the posts, I'm learning a lot and I really enjoy your point of view.
  
 You sound like you work in the industry so I'm wondering if you've heard Charlie Hansen from Ayre describe how he and his company design their audio products. It's fascinating to me as a developer/designer (not of audio gear) as well as a listener, since the SQ of the ponoplayer blows me away at that price point. 
  
 He said they have built their own extensive suite of listening tests that are not like typical AB or ABX tests, and demands all his engineers select components after spending hours if not days doing these long-term listening tests. The entire build is dictated by the results of these organic listening tests over specs, scopes, or outside recommendations/biases. 
  
 They basically work under the credo to trust your ears only, but only after an extensive and accurate listening to the component/circuit.
  
 The credo is played out in their finished products by removing most options and dials.  Many Ayre products will have 1 setting, or at minimum hide away the controls. 
  
 After some internal debate they even made a product that had 2 settings - the variables as decided by the ears, and the variables as decided by the spec sheet. A proof of concept.
  
 I can't afford any of their products except the ponoplayer, so this is philosophical for me. Since you work with these types of components so closely, whats your take on this Ayre style of circuit design?  It reminds me of instrument builders - they almost always use their ears and other senses to play the instrument as it's being created.


----------



## Kalemkolik

Hello
  
 are which model better Hi-Fi DAC ES9028C2M (LG G5 HİFİ) and ESS Sabre 9018C2M (V10) ?


----------



## GUTB

After a lengthy wait, I finally got my DIY builder's DAC from China based on the 9018. It's got dual transformers for analog and digital circuits, high-end op-amps, WIMA, ELNA and Nichicon caps, 0.5 ppm clock. XMOS board. Listening to it right now via WASAPI push through a Wyrd. My initial reaction: sound is COMPLETELY IDENTICAL to my Modi 2 Uber. I have a noisy Pioneer VSX-816 amp powering TH900s.
  
 Will need to go through a burn-in period. There should be some differences between a 9018 and an AK4396 that aren't being masked by a cheap amp...besides the periodic BEEP tones that are coming through.


----------



## Ecoli

So the question is which is currently the best dac chip?


----------



## Soundsgoodtome

For those that are interested in R2R, here are impressions from an ongoing tour I've arranged on a non-oversampling tube buffered R2R DAC. I find these DACs (Stockholm and Pagoda) to be a top performer in it's price range. DS d/a chips sound very sterile in comparison, not because of the tube but the details that's lost in the attack/decay due to DS filters. Impressions are on the very bottom and as the tour continues, more will show up.

 Just to add to the convo and something else for you guys to read:
   



Spoiler: My intro on this tour:






soundsgoodtome said:


> *Hello Head-Fi community*, being a part of this site for some time now and expanding my musical journey as well as the different gear I've been able to listen to; I figured closing in on 5000 posts it would be a great time to put together a tour for one of the best discoveries I've made upon joining the hobby years ago. Looking at my list of gear on my profile will show you I've gone through quite a bit sources, phones, amps. Many I've thoroughly enjoyed through the sonic journeys. Up until today, one discovery in the journey I've made are the MHDT line of DACs. With very little coverage of this DAC, I offer to tour a self-purchased Stockholm V2 to share this little known gem of a company.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  


 

 Quote: 





soundsgoodtome said:


> 2) @Barra - WA  Impressions *here *and *here*
> 3) _@Torq - WA _Impressions *here *
> *March*
> 4) @grizzlybeast - OR Impressions *here *


----------



## b0bb

ecoli said:


> So the question is which is currently the best dac chip?


 
  
 The ES9018 has the potential, depending on how it is implemented, including the surrounding support logic.
  
 I set out to understand this a little better and rebuilt and modded 2 ES9018 implementations.
  
 The first one is the Yulong DA8 MkI and the other a dual Sabre32 LKS MH-DA003
  
 The Yulong is a pretty close implementation to the reference design from ESS, out of the box, is a poster child for most of the common complaints directed at this DAC. I call this the "textbook" version of the ES9018, as I describe below, textbooks sometimes leave out some of the important stuff.
  
 I was curious to see if some of these issues can be fixed up and indeed it can.
 The main mod was to introduce a low phase noise clock from Crystek, this took care of most of the indistinct flabby bass issues and made the presentation less sterile.
 In order to improve the soundstage I added discrete voltage regulators from Belleson, this considerably improved the transient handling especially the definition of the  bass transients.
  
 It was interesting to note Yulong added a similar Crystek XO to the DA8 MkII, which came out about 8 months after I made the mod.
  
 The main limitation of the Yulong was the use of low cost SMT components for the analog filter, the ceramic caps and SMT resistors do not make for a good sounding DAC in my opinion.
 It leaves no room to make any improvements.
 This leads to my point of the dependence on implementation, overall pretty average DAC, very typical of the presentation of the  ES9018 and reinforces some of the negative impressions of DS DACs in general.
  
 More details here:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/699772/yulong-a28/195#post_11621683
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/673033/review-yulong-audio-sabre-da8-reference-dac/1470
  
 The second attempt with the LKS produced much more desirable results, this is a Dual Sabre32 with a low phase-noise Crystek XO and a galvanically isolated USB input.
 Shunt regulators were used fro the analog side with the separate power supplies to the various digital parts of the DAC
  
 Out of the box it was sonically superior to the Yulong DA8  including the one I modded, quite untypical for a Sabre32 DAC, it shared more in common with my R2R DACS like the Schiit Yggy and my Esoteric D10 with Dual TDA1541A .
 It is about 10% more expensive than the Yulong when I bought it.
  
 This goes back to increased attention to implementation details yields improved performance with the ES9018.
 The basic LKS is overbuilt and the analog stage used quality components like Film Polyproplyene Caps and MELF metal film resistors, these are conventional resistors without the leads for SMT mounting.
  
 Rebuilding the DAC showed me the possibilities on how far the performance of  ES9018 can be taken to.
  
 About half of the DAC has been rebuilt starting with the analog stage, the critical I/V opamp was replaced with a discrete unit capable of handling the current from the ES9018 operating  in Class-A most of the time.
  
 The I/V resistor was replaced  with a precision Vishay metal foil resistor with a 0.05% tolerance, this improves the DC precision to 12bits, most of the common DACs use lower quality components with a tolerance of 1% or worse, this is critical in the ES9018 as the standard implementation requires 2 I/V converters per channel for a 4 in total.
 This was vast improvement and has convinced me to stump up for the cash to have of 0.001% resistors custom made, this brings up the precision to 16-17bits.
  
 The USB interface was next, both LKS and Yulong use the interface made by Amanero in Italy, however LKS made available an enhanced version with Crystek low phase noise XOs and a low noise power supply to keep the XO performing to their max potential.
 A simple upgrade that moved the sound stage a few steps forward, plus it eliminated most the inconsistent performance we sometimes get from USB Audio, especially the high frequency glare and sterility.
 This comes back to the point of implementation, the LKS was better implemented to start with and opened up greater possibilities to improve its default state of implementation.
  
 The heart of the Sabre32 is the Masterclock and PLL reclocker, as my modification of the Yulong showed, a good low phase noise XO will transform the pedestrian sound quality to something quite acceptable.
 LKS implemented the DAC in a similar fashion and used a Crystek XO as stock, however LKS implemented a dedicated low noise regulator for the clock and the stock performance was considerably better because of that.
 LKS used a regulator than can supply enough power for a miniature Ovenized XO (OCXO),  without this foresight on the part of LKS, I would not have been able to take the LKS to the next step.
  
 The Yggy struggles to keep up with the modified LKS. The modifications in themselves improves upon the existing work LKS has done.
  
 In summary it boils to attention to details of the implementation with the ES9018, and I can appreciate why Accuphase and Gryphon have chosen the ES9018 as the basis of their DACs.
  
 More details here:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/745032/lks-audio-mh-da003/15#post_11668439
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/745032/lks-audio-mh-da003/60#post_11954317
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/745032/lks-audio-mh-da003/195#post_12454476


----------



## Ecoli

Any opinion about the K2M ?


----------



## b0bb

ecoli said:


> Any opinion about the K2M ?


 

 This is the low power scaled down version found mainly on portable equipment, one of my  "DAC on a USB stick" has one, it does its job and I have not paid it much attention beyond that.
  
 Some manufacturers like Light Harminic use it in some of their DACs


----------



## verycoolalan

Just wondering if anyone knows how the Woo Audio WDS PCM1795 chip compares against the ESS 9018?


----------



## imran27

Any comments on PCM5102A? It looks good for a DIY DAC due to it's single ended outputs.


----------



## borizm

PCM5102 was rather mediocre - worse even than PCM2702 (not PCM2704) in my mostly spider-soldered solution.
 I haven't tested PCM5102A yet, but the only difference is that it has a slightly reduced amplitude (lower than 2V RMS), because PCM5102 external +3.3V and internally pump-generated -3.3V voltage was not enough and every PCM5102 (without "A") clips the output at the maximum amplitude.
 Maybe PCM5102A is quite OK in a better circuit, but it's not a typical and decent multi-bit, nor even a TI advanced-segment PCM179x (also very good) DAC - it's some sort of delta-sigma as far as I remember.
 If you ask my, I will prefer ES9023 than PCM5102A, because I know how good as a chip ES9023 is for a price, but I will probably focus on PCM1794 rather than on ES9018 - "probably" because I have some sort of problem with accepting the way ES9018 sounds in devices I have, connected to high price of the IC and PCM1794 sounds to me more like old, good multi-bit with a decent OS inside.


----------



## imran27

borizm said:


> PCM5102 was rather mediocre - worse even than PCM2704 in my spider-soldered solution.
> I haven't tested PCM5102A yet, but only difference is that it has a slightly reduced amplitude (lower than 2V RMS), because PCM5102 internal pump-supply voltage 3.3V was not enough and every PCM5102 (without "A") is clipping the output at the maximum amplitude.
> Maybe PCM5102A is OK in better circuit, but is not a typical and decent multi-bit, nor even a TI advanced-segment (also very good) DAC.


 
 That leaves me with two options, CS4398 and WM8741


----------



## borizm

Quote:


imran27 said:


> That leaves me with two options, CS4398 and WM8741


 
 No, try PCM179x, ES9023 or even PCM5102A better then, because:

CS4398 - could and lifeless to me,
WM8741 and WM8740 - both sounds like broken, even in the best possible circuit - they have a problem with some sort of compression and sound is too dynamic in an artificial way,
 and both CS4398 and WM974x still requires more complicated design (even if you use only + or only - V-outputs through capacitor) than chip ES9023 and PCM5102A not giving any better SQ (I'm not talking about any technical advantages described in % or dB, but about the way the music is reproduced).
 Maybe the best option for a simple and still good DAC is to use old USB PCM2702 (only this one).
 There is also AD1955 which in my opinion is very good, maybe even better than ES9018, taking into the consideration an average SQ of available devices with both ICs.


----------



## youurayy

New dual implementation on the radar: https://www.rha-audio.com/us/dacamp/dacamp-l1.html
  
 Related thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/818168/introducing-the-dacamp-l1-flagship-cl1-ceramic-and-cl750-from-rha
  
 Not much info yet, but opinions are welcome.


----------



## jwbrent

youurayy said:


> New dual implementation on the radar: https://www.rha-audio.com/us/dacamp/dacamp-l1.html
> 
> Related thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/818168/introducing-the-dacamp-l1-flagship-cl1-ceramic-and-cl750-from-rha
> 
> Not much info yet, but opinions are welcome.


 

 Yes, I'm interested in the L!, but never owning a DAC that used ESS chips, I came to this thread wondering whether there is a distinct tonal quality.


----------



## germanium

I can vouch for the sound quality potential of the Sabre chips. They are truely high end. Better than the pcm 1794. Easier to get absolutely great sound from but great attention must be paid to the following analog section. Full direct coupling & film cap bypasses on analog power supply for opamps is absolutely necessary to get the best out of them. Otherwise they can sound mediocre at best.


----------



## FFBookman

germanium said:


> I can vouch for the sound quality potential of the Sabre chips. They are truely high end. Better than the pcm 1794. Easier to get absolutely great sound from but great attention must be paid to the following analog section. Full direct coupling & film cap bypasses on analog power supply for opamps is absolutely necessary to get the best out of them. Otherwise they can sound mediocre at best.


 

 from the ponoplayer impressions thread, re: how they use the DAC in a circuit design:
  


> I recently bought an Aune M1s.  I bought it because (at least by the specs) it had simliar features as the Pono (which I have).  Dual sabre chips in it, balanced output, supposedly very basic UI for sound reasons, no bluetooth or wifi or any doodads like that.  The Aune M1s has been getting some very high praise with comments such as 'sounds better than DAPs costing much more'.  I can say, without a doubt, that the Pono sounds much much better.  The Pono sounds alive and organic.  The M1s does not.  It's mostly in the bass regions where the Pono sounds...real.  Forget about the balanced mode, Pono kicks the Aune's ass.
> Another thing, Pono's line out sounds amazing in comparison as well.  Real life, like vinyl.  The Aune sounds compressed and mechanical (not like "real" music).  Just goes to show you that even with good parts and innovation, it's hard to compete with what Ayre came up with with the Pono.


----------



## Jimster480

germanium said:


> I can vouch for the sound quality potential of the Sabre chips. They are truely high end. Better than the pcm 1794. Easier to get absolutely great sound from but great attention must be paid to the following analog section. Full direct coupling & film cap bypasses on analog power supply for opamps is absolutely necessary to get the best out of them. Otherwise they can sound mediocre at best.


 

 They are also much more expensive and are more difficult to implement properly from what I understand.
  
 http://www.ti.com/product/pcm1794a/description
  
 That is the new version also.
  
 The reality is that in all the work taken to do them properly for different channels and stuff you might as well just work on a R2R DAC instead.


----------



## CyberGhost

I am trying to decide between:

This

https://hifimediy.com/Sabre-9018-DAC

And this

https://hifimediy.com/sabre-dac-uae23

One has ES9018K2M and the other has ES9023

I was wondering if there really is that much of difference between these two? I'm looking to drive Grado SR-225s.

I found this post on Reddit where the user says that there is no difference at all.

https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/3l9odv/is_there_any_difference_in_es9018k2m_and_es9023/


----------



## jodgey4

If you're driving your headphones directly out of the unit, get the nicer one with the dedicated headphone amp circuit IMO.


----------



## Clemmaster

Schiit Fula2.


----------



## selvakumar

Sennheiser HD820 uses 
*Sabre ES9018* its consider as refeerence class


----------



## Jimster480

selvakumar said:


> Sennheiser HD820 uses
> *Sabre ES9018* its consider as refeerence class


There are the ES9028 and ES9038 now also though.
But I have to say from hearing both a 9018 and a 9028 device, they sound basically the same. 

I personally listen to a dual ES9018K2M (Topping DX7) device all day every day and sold my 9028 device (M8A)


----------



## pibroch

Jimster480 said:


> There are the ES9028 and ES9038 now also though.
> But I have to say from hearing both a 9018 and a 9028 device, they sound basically the same.
> 
> I personally listen to a dual ES9018K2M (Topping DX7) device all day every day and sold my 9028 device (M8A)


The make and model of the dac chips used in a dac is largely irrelevant. It’s how a particular chip is implemented that is responsible for sound quality - that is, the design of the digital and analog parts of the circuits and how they work together. Different chips enable different design options but a dac chip alone has no sound character as such.


----------



## Jimster480

pibroch said:


> The make and model of the dac chips used in a dac is largely irrelevant. It’s how a particular chip is implemented that is responsible for sound quality - that is, the design of the digital and analog parts of the circuits and how they work together. Different chips enable different design options but a dac chip alone has no sound character as such.


I wouldn't exactly say that.
Because things like SNR and THD don't actually talk about audio quality in terms of detail resolution, of which there is no actual global metric for.
For example my Topping D30 has much better specs on paper (THD/SNR/Crosstalk) vs the Topping DX7 which looks pointless on paper but in practice actually has alot more detail resolution which is almost immediately noticeable if you listen to technical classical pieces or well-recorded jazz. 

But to some extent all the different "top tier" DAC's in proper implementations I'm sure have comparable SQ. Although ESS Technology has clearly spent more money and time on DAC technology especially in the recent years. This makes the most sense since its a company that basically just sells DAC's and a few other chips, unlike TI which has a wealth of products and hasn't had much in the way of new DAC chips in quite some time now.


----------



## pibroch

Jimster480 said:


> I wouldn't exactly say that.
> Because things like SNR and THD don't actually talk about audio quality in terms of detail resolution, of which there is no actual global metric for.
> For example my Topping D30 has much better specs on paper (THD/SNR/Crosstalk) vs the Topping DX7 which looks pointless on paper but in practice actually has alot more detail resolution which is almost immediately noticeable if you listen to technical classical pieces or well-recorded jazz.
> 
> But to some extent all the different "top tier" DAC's in proper implementations I'm sure have comparable SQ. Although ESS Technology has clearly spent more money and time on DAC technology especially in the recent years. This makes the most sense since its a company that basically just sells DAC's and a few other chips, unlike TI which has a wealth of products and hasn't had much in the way of new DAC chips in quite some time now.


I suspect the Topping D30 would have greater measured distortion in a parameter other than THD or SNR or crosstalk, such as jitter.


----------



## Jimster480

pibroch said:


> I suspect the Topping D30 would have greater measured distortion in a parameter other than THD or SNR or crosstalk, such as jitter.


Except jitter isn't measured either in terms of DAC specs.
That is THD Because Jitter = distortion.
SNR = noise floor

And its not distortion that the D30 has or even the M8 or M8A or  Modi Multibit have... the details are simply different on all of them.
The M8/M8A are basically identical, but the Modi multibit has the least details with a sound that is more like an oldschool stereo/cd player vs modern technology. None of this is shown though in their specs, and this is what I am talking about.
I went on a quest of DACs to see what the ruckus was about and if it was just marketing or measurable in any way. 
I tested DAC's with Wolfson (now Crystal), TI, ESS, AKM and Schiits ADI Multibit implementation. Despite comparable on paper specs they all sound different and reproduce music differently with varying levels of detail.
Also part of this is due to the analog stage, but I don't really think detail retrieval has to do much with the analog stage.


----------



## imran27

Jimster480 said:


> Except jitter isn't measured either in terms of DAC specs.
> That is THD Because Jitter = distortion.
> SNR = noise floor
> 
> ...


That's great @Jimster480 , I am actually in process of designing a DIY AMP and then a DAC too.
I was researching about the DAC chips available.

Right now I find TI 5242 very attractive. Differential voltage output and easy to work with, also cheaper to source.
I don't know if it sounds more detailed and revealing than the Wolfson.

As of now I don't have enough courage and mileage to delve into the PCM1794A...


----------



## Jimster480

imran27 said:


> That's great @Jimster480 , I am actually in process of designing a DIY AMP and then a DAC too.
> I was researching about the DAC chips available.
> 
> Right now I find TI 5242 very attractive. Differential voltage output and easy to work with, also cheaper to source.
> ...


I want to get into the same thing, I was also looking at TI for some starting designs.
I have to say they definitely have the best documentation, the most available options and the best prices.
TI chips certainly win in bang for the buck, they have some great DAC's available for as low as $2.
I also believe that some of their better Advanced Segment architecture DS DAC's will rival some of ESS Tech DAC's in detail retrieval even if I don't really think at this point they have anything to compete against ESS Top end chip. 

Something interesting to note about TI DAC's is that while many start with PCM, I more recently stumbled upon newer DAC's which start with DSD. But some/most also support PCM so..... not sure if those are actually better or not.


I was thinking about building a DIY DAC with possibly 2 of their DAC's per channel (probably will try 1 per channel first) and then analog summing it together or comparing the two sets of samples.
Funnily enough when googling around for such a thing I found that Benchmark's newest DAC is using 4x Sabre 9028 or 9038 (2 per channel) for additional quality aswell.
Although using more than one per channel will not increase detail resolution (only accuracy), using 2 in Mono mode can result in a much better sound (since all of the DACs internal resources go towards decoding only one channel of the sample).


----------



## selvakumar (Oct 13, 2017)

Jimster480 said:


> There are the ES9028 and ES9038 now also though.
> But I have to say from hearing both a 9018 and a 9028 device, they sound basically the same.
> 
> I personally listen to a dual ES9018K2M (Topping DX7) device all day every day and sold my 9028 device (M8A)


no 9028 is for SABRE PRO series DAC and its for mobile devices which consumes low power please do visit
http://www.esstech.com/index.php/en/products/sabre-digital-analog-converters/audiophile-dacs/
http://www.esstech.com/index.php/en/products/sabre-digital-analog-converters/sabre-hifi-mobile-dacs/


----------



## imran27

Jimster480 said:


> I want to get into the same thing, I was also looking at TI for some starting designs.
> I have to say they definitely have the best documentation, the most available options and the best prices.
> TI chips certainly win in bang for the buck, they have some great DAC's available for as low as $2.
> I also believe that some of their better Advanced Segment architecture DS DAC's will rival some of ESS Tech DAC's in detail retrieval even if I don't really think at this point they have anything to compete against ESS Top end chip.
> ...


What are your thoughts on the Wolfson DAC chips? How do they compare with others?
Is there any chip, according to your experience, that you can say has best or great details, neutrality and bass/treble extensions?


----------



## Jimster480

selvakumar said:


> no 9028 is for SABRE PRO series DAC and its for mobile devices which comsumes low power and its not referenece class DAC please do visit
> http://www.esstech.com/index.php/en/products/sabre-digital-analog-converters/audiophile-dacs/
> http://www.esstech.com/index.php/en/products/sabre-digital-analog-converters/sabre-hifi-mobile-dacs/



Please read your own links next time. 
This type of stuff is just embarrassing.... 
http://www.esstech.com/index.php/en...mobile-dacs/sabre-hifi-stereo-dacs/es9018k2m/
^ Let me know the first few words of the sentence there.


----------



## Jimster480

imran27 said:


> What are your thoughts on the Wolfson DAC chips? How do they compare with others?
> Is there any chip, according to your experience, that you can say has best or great details, neutrality and bass/treble extensions?



Wolfson has the warmest sound. 
Personally I never enjoyed the Wolfson sound before. 
Although the CS4398 in the topping D30 doesn't have any coloration that I can tell of vs the Sabre in the M8A.
In my tests I have found that Sabre DACs have the most treble details which some people consider extension. They are also less forgiving to poor recordings and artifacts. 
The CS4398 has a smoother sound and none of the same artifacts are heard. 
Now when comparing CS4398 VS ES9018k2m (D30 vs M8) the difference in detail is not as great as vs the DX7.

It is worth noting though that the only dual chip DAC I own is the Topping DX7. 
I got mine on sale and wanted to see if dual DAC chips actually resolved more detail and they do. 

These tests were done on some of my favorite classical and jazz songs as well as 2 good R&B songs with female vocals and 3-4 other songs which have known artifacts or identifiable micro details or both. 
I also listened to every DAC for roughly 80 hours minimum while I worked in my office to see if I noticed differences in normal listening. 
During that time if I ran into a track that sounded sonically noticeably different, I would plug in the other DAC(s) and start testing.


----------



## imran27

Jimster480 said:


> Wolfson has the warmest sound.
> Personally I never enjoyed the Wolfson sound before.
> Although the CS4398 in the topping D30 doesn't have any coloration that I can tell of vs the Sabre in the M8A.
> In my tests I have found that Sabre DACs have the most treble details which some people consider extension. They are also less forgiving to poor recordings and artifacts.
> ...


And how does the SABRE compare to the TI Delta-Sigmas?

Based on your observations, I assume that PCM5102A (E17k or E10k) must sound similar to the CS4398? To me the DAC sounded pretty good in my previous DIY setup (5102 with OPA2365, amazing)


----------



## Jimster480

imran27 said:


> And how does the SABRE compare to the TI Delta-Sigmas?
> 
> Based on your observations, I assume that PCM5102A (E17k or E10k) must sound similar to the CS4398? To me the DAC sounded pretty good in my previous DIY setup (5102 with OPA2365, amazing)



I have only heard the TI DAC in one of my sound cards, in my car and in my FiiO K1 (atleast of the devices I know the DAC in).
Its hard for me to compare  but when I connected the output to my Amp instead and listened to it, I would say that it is similar to the CS4398 although the FiiO K1 lacks some detail, I don't believe it is specifically the fault of the DAC.
Believe it or not, its semi hard to find decent constructed stand-alone DAC's these days running TI chips unless its a TEAC product that costs more than all the rest of my gear lol. The rest of the TI Products are just very cheap all-in-one devices from a variety of companies. 
I have considered ordering an ODAC RevB Because it is powered by a TI Chip just for comparison, but I haven't gotten around to it.


----------



## imran27

Just looked at the AKM differential output DAC's like the AK4490 and above are pretty intriguing.

The best THD+N figures I have seen so far.

@Jimster480 Can you comment on AKM DAC? (Assuming you have had an experience with AKM DAC based devices)


----------



## Jimster480

imran27 said:


> Just looked at the AKM differential output DAC's like the AK4490 and above are pretty intriguing.
> 
> The best THD+N figures I have seen so far.
> 
> @Jimster480 Can you comment on AKM DAC? (Assuming you have had an experience with AKM DAC based devices)


The only AKM DAC device that I have used (and know the AKM chip is inside) is the Fulla 2.
Its said that AKM chips are "brighter" but I would take that with a grain of salt. 
I know that AKM is more versed for DSD music and its said that their AK4490 is more comparable to the ES9018/9028 chips.
I haven't done enough side by side comparisons of the two to say that one has more detail than the other because my Fulla 2 is not the same level of product as my SMSL M8 / M8A or Topping DX7 so the comparison would be unfair. 
The THD+N does look good but remember that with many of these chips its a bit exaggerated because you won't reach those figures when playing 16/44.1 music, its just the maximum that it can reach provided that you are playing 24b music or high DSD.


----------



## wazzupi

You would be the last post on this thread jimster hehe.


----------



## Jimster480

wazzupi said:


> You would be the last post on this thread jimster hehe.


I am LE Master DAC researcher!


----------



## Sapientiam

Jimster480 said:


> I was thinking about building a DIY DAC with possibly 2 of their DAC's per channel (probably will try 1 per channel first) and then analog summing it together or comparing the two sets of samples.



If you're seriously considering DIYing a DAC then have a look over at Hackaday.io, I'm in the process of writing up my latest (highly affordable) DAC design for anyone to have a shot at. It uses TDA1387 which is an excellent chip for DIYing because its a) only 8 pins so very simple and b) in an easy to solder package without very tight pin spacing and c) very, very cheap so no worries if you blow one or two up in your build process.

https://hackaday.io/project/27001-audiophile-sounding-dac-for-almost-no-money


----------



## Jimster480

Sapientiam said:


> If you're seriously considering DIYing a DAC then have a look over at Hackaday.io, I'm in the process of writing up my latest (highly affordable) DAC design for anyone to have a shot at. It uses TDA1387 which is an excellent chip for DIYing because its a) only 8 pins so very simple and b) in an easy to solder package without very tight pin spacing and c) very, very cheap so no worries if you blow one or two up in your build process.
> 
> https://hackaday.io/project/27001-audiophile-sounding-dac-for-almost-no-money



Thanks man I'll check it out for sure. 
I will diy a dac later, but I do want to probably use TI chips in a dual or quad mono format.


----------



## piotrekfronc

I'll drop my 5 cents....
I used to have many dacs and will focus on portable implementations.
From all ES9018 machines (HM901, Ibasso, Fiio etc.) I can tell that sabre is a great chip, but really, really MA9 with Alex Mod and black elna caps  Im using now is just incomparable. The rest of daps sound like middleware when compared... the richness of tones, bass depth and dynamics... PCM1704 blows, its just much better, sort of a "final solution", end-game, can play anything you throw on it.

Obviously a lot depends on a design and implementation, but if its done right, just go for the texas power...


----------



## boxxi

IMO Sabre chips are the worst of all DAC chips - incredibly digital sounding with sharp glare. Generally Delta-Sigma DACs are not very good in my perspective. The best DACs out there would still go to proprietary implementations or R2R/multibit. Once I went to multibit DACs, DS DACs were un-listenable. Of course there are exceptions to Sabre which can sound decent, such as the Auralic Vega, but they could never come close to R2R, even compared to $30k Sabre DACs out there. YMMV


----------



## Jimster480

boxxi said:


> IMO Sabre chips are the worst of all DAC chips - incredibly digital sounding with sharp glare. Generally Delta-Sigma DACs are not very good in my perspective. The best DACs out there would still go to proprietary implementations or R2R/multibit. Once I went to multibit DACs, DS DACs were un-listenable. Of course there are exceptions to Sabre which can sound decent, such as the Auralic Vega, but they could never come close to R2R, even compared to $30k Sabre DACs out there. YMMV


I'm not sure what you are talking about.... honestly there is no difference with R2R and R2R actually has measurably worse performance vs DS.
The most complex R2R DAC's still measure worse than most of the cheat DS DAC's...


----------



## boxxi

Jimster480 said:


> I'm not sure what you are talking about.... honestly there is no difference with R2R and R2R actually has measurably worse performance vs DS.
> The most complex R2R DAC's still measure worse than most of the cheat DS DAC's...


Correct. I completely agree on that R2R measures comparably worse than DS. Not everything that is objectively measured can be directly correlated to how much you enjoy a piece of gear, if that were the case, we would have much less variety in products. Measurements are important, don't get me wrong, Tyll from Innerfidelity has a great article elaborating on that. 

I just feel that R2R captures natural-ness of presentation much better than DS. They give a 'live' presentation that leans more towards analogue than digital, and I am not the only one that feels so. To each his own, some may like the more digital presentation, but for me, I will never go back to DS. 
Before this becomes a subjectivist vs objectivist name calling session, let us all just *keep an open mind* and try out stuff before putting it down.
My best audio experiences came from spontaneous meets.


----------



## bballas

100% agree with boxxi!!!!!!!


----------



## imran27

Has anyone here compared the ES9018to ES9018K2M?


----------



## selvakumar

imran27 said:


> Has anyone here compared the ES9018to ES9018K2M?


Follow my post both are same but k2k only dual channel but Es9018 quad channel
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/new...amp-rollers-dream.860882/page-5#post-13780883
1.
ES9018 SABRE32 Reference 32-bit 8-Channel Audio DAC
http://www.esstech.com/index.php/en...ile-dacs/classic-sabre-8-channel-dacs/es9018/
2.
SABRE9018Q2C SABRE32 Mobile Reference DAC
http://www.esstech.com/index.php/en...bre-hifi-stereo-integrated-dacs/sabre9018q2c/
3.ES9018C2M 
http://www.esstech.com/index.php/en/products/sabre-digital-analog-converters/sabre-hifi-mobile-dacs/sabre-hifi-stereo-dacs/sabre9018c2m/
4.ES9018K2M
http://www.esstech.com/index.php/en/products/sabre-digital-analog-converters/sabre-hifi-mobile-dacs/sabre-hifi-stereo-dacs/es9018k2m/
please do provide clear picture of DAC Chip and XMOS USB CHIP


----------



## DiamondPilot

pibroch said:


> The make and model of the dac chips used in a dac is largely irrelevant. It’s how a particular chip is implemented that is responsible for sound quality - that is, the design of the digital and analog parts of the circuits and how they work together. Different chips enable different design options but a dac chip alone has no sound character as such.



That's like saying a cartridge and stylus have nothing to do with the sound quality of vinyl playback - it's all in the phono preamp.

The DAC chip is what takes a series of numbers and generates an audio waveform from it.
I promise you the quality the sound is a function of the quality of the component actually rendering the waveform.

It is true that the implementation, including filtering and analog output stage also have a significant effect on the sound.


----------



## DiamondPilot

Jimster480 said:


> Except jitter isn't measured either in terms of DAC specs.
> That is THD Because Jitter = distortion.



No, Jitter creates distortions that are not harmonic in nature.

I suggest a reading on what _harmonic_ distortion is, starting with what harmonics are in relation to fundamentals, even-order and odd-order harmonics, etc.

THD is, in fact, arguably the least offensive type of distortion, as it tends to sound quite musical. In fact, there is a broad trend in professional digital studio recording today to add harmonic distortion to recordings via DAW plug-ins as a sonic enhancement to make in-the-box recordings sound better.

Much worse are IMD and phase distortion, the latter of which is caused by jitter.

THD is only the predominant spec buzzword because it was part of the Federal Trade Commissions standards for rating stereo amplifier power circa the early 70's.


----------



## Dr. Ameet V Joshi

Jimster480 said:


> Except jitter isn't measured either in terms of DAC specs.
> That is THD Because Jitter = distortion.
> SNR = noise floor
> 
> ...



Hey, Can you comment on which ones  you found to have most details


----------



## JUNGLEJIM79

Hi Everyone. I have found a Onkyo pd-s10 for sale, it a couple of years old, but for me that shouldn't matter if like Justin W wrote near the start of this thread, its all about the implementation, not just the chip.
I have not been able to find any info on this - no youtube videos, a little spec on amazon.com, but thats it. I'm not too bothered about lots and lots of options, for me the most important thing is pure audio clarity, and enough power. Fiio M11 Pro / Pioneer XDP300 / iBasso dx200 are all on my Radar, are all similar priced on eBay. Out of these the ibasso stands out re module options, and so the Shanling M6, Hiby R6 and Cayin N6 for the same reasons. But these are roughly 3 times the price. Can an older, yet well specked machine like the Onkyo pd-s10 hold its ground and give me what I need, or is the difference in these newer machines night and day just for pure audio quality. Any advice most welcome. Jungle


----------



## Jet Black

Jimster480 said:


> I am LE Master DAC researcher!


As an LE Dac researcher, how do you find the cirrus logic cs43131 chip? Does it rival the best around like the akms and sabres


----------

