2. digital
  3. 1398132150

Absolute top tier DAC for standard res Redbook CD

Hi All.

Putting together a reference level system.
My Source is predominantly standard 16/44 played from a MacMini using iTunes and Amarra. Some of my music is purchased from iTunes and the rest is ripped from standard CD's.
For my tastes in music, my high def catalogues are still limited; so Redbook 16/44 will be my primary source for quite some time.

I'm not spending DCS or MSB money. But $15-20k retail is not out of the question.

Upsampling vs non-upsampling?
USB input vs SPDIF?

All opinions welcome.

And I know I need to hear them, but getting these ultra $$$ DAC's into your house for an audition ain't easy.

Looking for musical, emotional, engaging, accurate , with great dimension. Not looking for analytical and sterile.
mattnshilp
mattnshilp OP
894 posts
 
I agree with CTSooner. And I said the same thing the last time this was brought up. I don’t believe that a certain type of chip is required to make good sound. It’s all in the implementation of that chip. That said, if an R2R is properly implemented it will typically make great sound. But I have heard good non R2R beat meh R2R dacs. It’s how you use it, not just what parts are installed. 
gdhal's avatar
gdhal
1,641 posts
 
In the case of Grateful Dead, the actual source music is distributed as flac files because this is "lossless" compression technology. Whereas so much other music distributed is mp3, mqa or some other compression/lossy schema.

In the case of DACs, it’s my understanding that delta-sigma is "lossy" (i.e. all of the source PCM music just isn’t converted and played back) whereas an RxR DAC is "lossless", so all of the music is played. And if that is true, it becomes hard to imagine how delta-sigma could possibly ever sound better, regardless of how it is used or any other factor for that matter.

So in my mind, if in fact delta-sigma is "lossy" and does not play *all* of the music, it is automatically disqualified as even being a contender for what this thread is mean to address, Absolute top tier DAC for standard res Redbook CD.

EDIT:

So as silly as it seems, the essence of what I'm stating is that even *if* delta-sigma does sounds better in any particular implementation, who cares, if all of the music isn't being played?
jwm
908 posts
 
I think you don’t know what your talking about. Delta sigma beat discrete how could that be if information is missing?
audioengr
3,282 posts
 
In the case of DACs, it’s my understanding that delta-sigma is "lossy" (i.e. all of the source PCM music just isn’t converted and played back) whereas an RxR DAC is "lossless", so all of the music is played. And if that is true, it becomes hard to imagine how delta-sigma could possibly ever sound better, regardless of how it is used or any other factor for that matter.

Not true. I think you are maybe confusing this with lossy formats. You can think of the Delta-Sigma as an engine that creates the R2R function repetitively. Instead of having passive banks of resistors to create different voltage levels, it uses a single engine that iterates to create these dynamically.

Delta-Sigma can definitely sound better than R2R, particularly older R2R chips. Newer Delta-Sigma chips not only support 24/192, they have excellent measurements which include very low distortion and noise as well as higher S/N ratio. They tend to reveal more detail at high frequencies too. The older R2R chips are often implemented without any digital filter, so this solves this issue, but it does not solve the high-frequency detail problem.

The thing that sets the Delta-Sigma apart from the R2R is usually the digital filter implementation. If this is executed well, the Delta-Sigma can beat the R2R, depending on implementation and particularly power delivery to the chip.

This is one down-side to R2R discrete implementations. They tend to require much more board space than the Delta-Sigma, so this makes it more difficult to get di/dt power to the devices involved.

A second down-side to R2R discrete implementations is the tolerance of the resistors and their accuracy. The Delta-Sigma only needs one or two circuits to be very accurate. The discrete R2R needs hundreds of individual resistors to be extremely accurate.

A third down side to discrete R2R implementations is the speed at which they can process new words.  Because of the distributed nature of the resistor networks and the many drivers needed, it is more difficult to get a really fast response from these circuits, like you would with an single integrated circuit.

Steve N.

Empirical Audio


charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
6,996 posts
 
Hi SteveN,
I appreciate your explanation of the specific differences between R2R architecture and delta sigma. Gdhal’s comments just didn’t correlate with my actual listening experiences of many DACs of both type of designs. Based on hype I had the expectation that R2R May be inherently the superior choice for sound quality but that hasn’t been supported by real world direct listening comparisons.

I completely agree with other posters  here that you simply can’t make blanket statements. It truly is a matter fully dependant on overall implementation process unless one chooses to be dogmatic and stubborn in their stance. Excellent sound quality can be achieved with either approach. Delta sigma can sound sublime.
Charles
More to discover