cetoole Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 So the PCM1704 doesn't take a 16/44.1 input and convert it to 24/96 in the DAC chip? If it doesn't, then it was a poor assumption on my part (I was under the impression only the TDA chips did no upsampling internally). I like the PCM DACs as well, I haven't read anything posted by Charles Hansen on his thoughts on digital on AA. But hopefully he is sticking to the PCM family Nope, no internal digital filter. Its just a good old (sorta) R2R DAC, with some internal tricks. You can run it at 16/44.1 no problem, if thats what makes you hot. Of course, I would advocate using a good digital filter with it, like the SM5847. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopstretch Posted January 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Audio-gd has a new PCM1704-based DAC on the way. The technical stuff is beyond me, as always, but it looks like it means business inna no-frills stylee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Jesus that's a lot of components. You think it's discrete ladder? Well, it's balanced, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cetoole Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 I think its 8x PCM1704, but cant quite see well enough. Its a crazy amount of parts though, and whats with all the parts being through hole, or the hookup wire for the spdif inputs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon L Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Audio-gd has a new PCM1704-based DAC on the way. The technical stuff is beyond me, as always, but it looks like it means business inna no-frills stylee. For those interested, there's already a pretty extensive user-review of this Audio-gd DAC, and even their matching pre and amp, on AC. The pricing sure seems reasonable Review: Audio-GD C1 Amp, C3 Preamp, and DAC8 D/A Converter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopstretch Posted March 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Back to Ayre, they've recently put two interesting bits of reading up on their Web site: A rundown on the asynchronous USB implementation in the DAC (sounds like it's using the TAS1020B?) as well as the details of the MP filter that's in all their new digital products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopstretch Posted April 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 My friendly local Ayre dealer says they're getting one in any day now and would be happy to lend it to me for a week to try out at home. So, woot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvark baguette Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 This is on my short list of home upgrades. I expect pics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cclragnarok Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 My friendly local Ayre dealer says they're getting one in any day now and would be happy to lend it to me for a week to try out at home. So, woot! Great news. I'm still waiting for a review of this DAC. I'm also wondering which DAC chip they decided to use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvark baguette Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I'm still waiting for it to show up online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pars Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I think its 8x PCM1704, but cant quite see well enough. Its a crazy amount of parts though, and whats with all the parts being through hole, or the hookup wire for the spdif inputs? Yeah, for a statement DAC, that is some serious fail on the SPDIF wiring and lack of a pulse transformer and impedance matching that I can see. I can't understand how you bother to put a 75 ohm BNC on, then just grab some wire from the tool box Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanY Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I can't understand how you bother to put a 75 ohm BNC on, then just grab some wire from the tool box Does this really matter as much as Jocko Homo says it does? It's like a religion to him, but I've never seen measurements that quantify the impact. I suspect that if it made a huge difference, I'm sure there would be at least a handful of DAC vendors using BNC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pars Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) I don't know from personal experience, as I don't use external DACs, but if you are going to bother, at least use a chunk of RG179 micro coax. If you can get it right and it doesn't cost that much to do it, I can't think of a reason not to. Speaking of jocko, some interesting posts on audiocircle, such as this thread where he takes a squeezebox (IIRC) and mods the SPDIF out for another board member, who hears the differences. http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=45330.0 Edited April 16, 2009 by Pars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veloaudio Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 I meant to post this a while ago but I forgot and I just found the link. Middle of the page for a picture of the back: SoundStage! Network Las Vegas 2009 Special Show Site Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadhead Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 I meant to post this a while ago but I forgot and I just found the link. Middle of the page for a picture of the back: SoundStage! Network Las Vegas 2009 Special Show Site Unlike most USB DACs, the QB9 will accept a 24-bit/96kHz high-resolution signal Utter horse crap. Nearly every DAC in that price range takes 24/96 over USB and a whole lot of cheaper ones do to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopstretch Posted April 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 I thought 16/44.1 was a limitation of the USB 1.1 spec, which most USB DAC chips still seem to be based around? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadhead Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 (edited) I thought 16/44.1 was a limitation of the USB 1.1 spec, which most USB DAC chips still seem to be based around? List of ones that I know for sure support it: M-Audio Transit, Audiophile Benchmark DAC1 USB etc Bel Canto DAC3 Lavry DA10/11 Wavelength Stuff crapload of other cheap 24/96 usb soundcards I'm not even sure about the 1.1 limitation but I know those at least 3 of those work through personal experience. In the price range that Ayre is sitting at that's disingenuous to say most don't because most do. Firewire is even more fun... the DAC2 I have right now does 192/24 Edited April 30, 2009 by Dreadhead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cclragnarok Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 List of ones that I know for sure support it: M-Audio Transit, Audiophile Benchmark DAC1 USB etc Bel Canto DAC3 Lavry DA10/11 Wavelength Stuff crapload of other cheap 24/96 usb soundcards I'm not even sure about the 1.1 limitation but I know those at least 3 of those work through personal experience. In the price range that Ayre is sitting at that's disingenuous to say most don't because most do. Firewire is even more fun... the DAC2 I have right now does 192/24 Actually, the Bel Canto DAC3 only takes 16/48 over USB, and the Lavry DA10 does not have an USB input at all. It's also not clear whether that statement is coming from Ayre, or just the writer of the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadhead Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Actually, the Bel Canto DAC3 only takes 16/48 over USB, and the Lavry DA10 does not have an USB input at all. It's also not clear whether that statement is coming from Ayre, or just the writer of the article. You are right. By the time I got the DAC3 I never used the USB port and I just assumed that they had 24/96 like their dongle thing. I dunno why I typed DA10 though. As you say it isn't necessarily Ayre saying this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopstretch Posted April 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 It's also not clear whether that statement is coming from Ayre, or just the writer of the article. Pretty sure that's from the writer. Ayre have not made much of the 24/96 angle as Charles Hansen seems much more interested in handling jitter better through the use of asynchronous mode. The rationale behind the QB-9 is laid out here: http://www.ayre.com/pdf/Ayre_USB_DAC_White_Paper.pdf Regarding USB limitations, I see that the paper says: Finally, it should be noted that D/A converter boxes based on the PCM270x series parts are limited to a maximum sample rate of 48 kHz and a maximum word length of 16 bits. It appears to suggest that parallel use of the TAS1020B with custom drivers is required to get around that limitation, though I have no idea if this is the only way or indeed even if the limitation extends to other common USB chips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cclragnarok Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Pretty sure that's from the writer. Ayre have not made much of the 24/96 angle as Charles Hansen seems much more interested in handling jitter better through the use of asynchronous mode. It does sound like regular marketing BS from manufacturers, so I can see why Dreadhead took it that way, but Charles Hansen definitely would have mentioned the Async USB if he wrote that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadhead Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 It's going to be interesting to see how this works out. The part that worries me is this: http://www.ayre.com/PDF/Ayre_MP_White_Paper.pdf This is in no way new knowledge and it's been around for years in pro-audio/mastering when down sampling but Ayre doesn't seem to mention that. Applying that filter to 44.1 audio is as far as I'm concerned editing the digital signal, which may of course sound amazing but not what I'm looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopstretch Posted April 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 I guess we'll see. Someone on Head-Fi apparently has his hands on one already, but is currently preoccupied with trying to pick out just the right interconnects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadhead Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Pure, spent uranium? It gives the music a certain glow I really am looking forward to hearing this DAC though. Even if they don't particularly reference others their approach is theoretically well thought out which is a step up. If I had not moved on to firewire I think I would be a whole lot more interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 I thought 16/44.1 was a limitation of the USB 1.1 spec, which most USB DAC chips still seem to be based around?The conversation is already played out, but I thought I'd still mention -- this is by no means a limitation of the USB 1.1 spec at all. USB 1.1 can easily handle 24/96, and I have a USB 1.1 DAC to prove it (M-Audio Sonica -- precursor to the Transit). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.