Jump to content

baldr

  • Posts

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

4 Followers

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hey there – just a couple of comments. Can’t resist it. The boards were all made with my best efforts. None were gimped or boosted. It was an exercise in making a better Yggy. The DACs were initially picked for an apparently better attribute (better specs below minus 100db, loooooooooooow INL and DNL). Even after I found out the prevalent irrelevance of specs to sound like it is in the wild, the surviving DACs to all have “good” specs for those who listen with their eyes distracted with graphs. I realize that I cannot please all – the variety of boards offer options. I build gear to recreate a musical experience which is a major source of near spiritual pleasure/emotion in my life. I have heard everyone from Joplin to Hendrix to Mahler to Wagner live in multiple venues. I do this because I fucking love it. I am not an evangelist – this is not the only way. Many can be happy with a Modi or what my many competitors build. I sell what sounds good to me, even if it a hundred bucks. I do have a creed; my orthodoxy is multibit for best audio pleasure. So much so that I almost believe my worst multibit is better than the best delta sigma. Therefore, I am now working on better software based delta sigma DACs in an attempt to prove myself wrong. We’ll see what happens - I still have a lot to do. Meanwhile, I am still skeptical of measurements below about minus 70db or so. I can’t believe in mosquito farts’ audibility in the context of jet engines. Seems like a hand job to me. Seems to me that common sense trumps bad science. I’ll sign off with a word of appreciation to all those who support this industry – I’d be hungry without it.
  2. Well, I am sitting here listening to Wagner’s Parsifal which has the reputation of being the longest opera ever written. Gives rise to some thought……….. This particular version is played by Rudolf Moralt (Ricard Strauss’ nephew) conducting the Vienna State Opera, one the very best in the world. Some 50 years ago, the director was asked (in a very pre-diversity world) why the orchestra would not accept auditions from those outside Austria. The answer was that the Staatsoper (State Opera) was a Austrian institution and needed to preserve its unique, excellent, and above all Viennese sound. So what does this have to do with Schiit? Or for that matter, its better competitors? How about the fact that the chief designers produce a by-and large unique sound. The Schiit digital sound is directly a product of what I like. The influence was cemented when I met my hero designer, Peter Walker in the bar of the Blackstone Hotel in the very early 1970s, when CES shows were still in Chicago. Mr. Walker was the main design guy at Acoustical Mfg. Co., makers of the Quad Electrostatic Speaker. He explained to me that the purpose of a music reproduction system was to do just that – to reproduce the sound – to come as close as possible to the sound of the original. Now before I am adjudged to be a classical geek, I freely admit to the attendant guilt of being an unapologetic deadhead. So much so, that my daughter was conceived at a Grateful Dead Concert. (It was a different world back then – the concerts were at Parks rather than theaters, and most couples brought their own blankets and pillows). Now I have trouble with electronic music. The problem is not like/dislike but how to judge the original sound. Now I never, but never, tune or distune my stuff for a given sound. I judge my gear by how an oboe, violin, strat, telecaster, Les Paul, etc. sound. That’s my goal sound. Now I am willing to build almost anything, providing it contributes to the above. The first ds dac I built, was astonishingly insipid, out of the Crystal 4328 series. Really elegant math and totally cool design features. Like a beautiful woman with no heart. Really complicated hardware and design guides so any cretin can build one. That’s why there are so many of them out there. Hey, I have a couple of them in Schiit production myself. They are all both under a couple of hundred bucks. My rules are if I can’t build a better sounding multibit DAC for the money, that is where ds dacs are justified. Or maybe in surround decoders which I will never build anyway.. I prefer a beautiful Multibit woman with maybea mole on her face that gets it on like the Easter Bunny (Sorry John). That’s why whenever it doesn’t have to be cheap, cheap, cheap or in a surround sound decoder, I go for multibit. Sounds more like the original to me. The DSD, etc. is more of the ds same with really cooler math, more reduced bits quicker, and beautiful women who start to look like anime. Also not a lot of software. More bits is better, way better. Now re building new stuff or stuff out of my repertoire – bring it on. If I believe it is gonna help my work consistent with the above goal or is an interesting thing - I’m in there. The gadget, the expander (in proto but not out yet.) I know a lot more about low-level USB receiver and host design than I did a year and a half ago. Now, neither Jason nor myself are experts at polka music, ballet, or UI software. Therefore never, but NEVER will we build a streamer. The gizmo is definitely two USBs to a Unison Host. That was called perfectly. The transport proto is a CD spinner with S/Pdif and USB outs and some other features I forget. It is the worst transport/spinner I have ever used, except all of the others I have built or tried.
  3. It is quite the challenge to qualify the USB output of the transport with the hundreds of D/A converters in the wild. No such problem with S/Pdif, as it is a standardized input/output protocol, with specific control bits reserved. The USB, on the other hand, has standard descriptors and handshake speeds for both speeds of digital audio. Other unusual formats, such as dsd (not picking on them – there are many others) have descriptors and handshake protocols which vary in speed and assignment. It therefore becomes a complex problem to interface our USB output with a wide variety of D/a converters, which only begins with access to those devices. The generally proprietary nature of our industry, makes access problematical. The gizmo we have built is a two input USB switcher with our Unison USB output. This will allow the user to verify if our USB out works with their converter. It is also a much smaller box than a transport to utilize when we arrive at early beta times. As quoted above the transport remains in alpha. If it is not already obvious, the product is a CD transport. This is a good time for me to restate my opinion that CD playback with our Unison CD Host and Input is the finest digital audio I have heard. I know, I know, it is all ones and zeros, no?? There is something else in play, since streamers are just NOT the same. When I figure out what's different, maybe I'll be rich.
  4. So I can’t believe I have been building digital audio stuff for Schiit up on 10 years. The worst of it for me at the beginning was building the USB inputs which I always thought sounded like ass; kinda worse than an old cassette tape or 8 track – insufferable. Like listening to Herbert von Karajan. So there has been a quote attributed to me that the Gen V was USB solved. This was a couple of years ago and I just cannot recall the context. At the risk of sounding like I attempt to change my historical opinion, this is what I thought at the time: the Gen V USB was the first USB where I could play USB and stay in the same room with it. It by no means made want to skip into the audio room to listen to it. Since I was quoted as that was USB solved, than it was like a baloney sandwich “solves” lunch – at least I would’ve probably not thrown it up. The Gen (various) USBs were all based on a C-Media USB decoder chip, there are many other chips which decode digital audio, the most popular of which is various XMOS (sic – maybe a hyphen) ones used by our competitors. As far as I know, all of our competition uses somebody’s OEM chip. The Unison solution is Schiit proprietary decoding fitted in a Microchip 32 bit pic part. This allows us complete freedom in all design params, both hardware and software, optimized for best sound and factors which will please the measurebators as well. So we worked for over three man(one woman) years to get the part to Beta level. Then we sent out beta Unisons to users. This would verify how the Unison fared with various USB sources. Somehow our group of beta users missed the Aurender. Fortunately, we were able to work that out by sending them a unit and life goes on happily. So why do we want to go to the trouble of three man years to develop our own USB technology? 1. It is OUR technology, impossible in a chipmaker’s device. 2. We are now USB licensees with our own unique USB ID and unmatched USB support. 3. Sonic bragging rights. So is this USB solved? In the sense that it is however, USB which I prefer to S/Pdif, which gets even better with a Unison host (USB encoder, so to speak). Is it likely to improve? Probably. Is it perfect? No, but I like it. A lot, and I have been doing this a long time. More on the Unison host is that it is now in alpha, still with the very occasional glitch but magnificent when paired with a Unison receiver. The best USB connectivity I have ever heard, and superior to any AES or S/Pdif in my experience. It is getting close to Beta but I still need to get it going with a common variety of OP’s (other people’s) USB chips before I send them out in the wild to see what else lurks there. Is it solved? I dunno. In 35 years of digital audio engineering, I experienced maybe 4 or 5 true audio major events. Two of them were Unison. The only time I ever thought I solved something was when I finished my first DSP D/A converter in 1985. I got it to market in just ahead of the Wadia which made it first on the market. Here I set dozens of D/A converters later and the meaning of “solved” is yet more numinous. Sure enjoyed all of those years, though. Mike
  5. It is really only intended for very good sounding single function needledrops or mag tape digital archiving, not as a recording studio piece.
  6. I'm just not a MQA fan at all: What a long, strange trip it's been -- (Robert Hunter) - Page 44
  7. Please let me indicate, with apologies, that in my catching up on this forum last night, I did indeed incorrectly report a quote by the system moderator. It turns out I confused it with another post. Mea culpa, Chris!
  8. Please excuse my delay in addressing Peter and his minion Mani's criticism of my design choices and philosophy with respect to the Yggy. At the time they initially went off, I was in a pre hospitalization mode where I could barely walk. I then went in for some fairly major neck rebuild surgery and just now can function well – much better! I am still wearing a medieval torture device neck collar which prevents me from looking down, and for that reason may leave some typos in this missive. So now that I am healthy, please allow this retort: 1. Audio vs. Industrial DACs. Forty years ago, I designed and built the first no feedback, passive RIAA equalized, and 6DJ8 exclusively tubed audio preamplifier. At the time, the audio tubes in use were the 12A_7 family which indeed were designed to be for audio use. They were proper and inexpensive enough to be designed into the cheapest of phonographs. Although embarrassingly cheap, they were used in the finest preamps of the late first tube era, MacIntosh and Marantz. The 6DJ8 was a lower noise, far more inherently linear, and much wider audio through RF bandwidth device. Those capable of qualitative differentiation realized that the 12A_7 was a subset of the 6DJ8 – the latter featured much lower noise and much better distortion as a bonus. A total freebie was the much wider bandwidth which enabled much higher slewing rates. At the time, I was savaged by an engineering troglodyte of the day who called me out for not using audio parts and high amounts of feedback. Well, here we are 40 years later as the second tube era enters maturity. It seems the 6DJ8/6922/etc tube family has been well established – screw all of you Luddites. Fast forward to today. We have audio DACs (largely used by engineering insophisticates or troglodytes). We also have industrial DACs which are faster, and far more accurate. Accurate you say? You bet. There are two specs that inexpensively designed audio DACs leave unspecified. DNL and INL. I don't want to turn this into a tech wiki, but those specs are less than 1LSB on both the AD5791/81. DACs unspecified thusly are prone to errors much higher than -110 db, possibly as high as -6db according to which code is problematical. This is why cheaply designed audio DACs are totally unsuited for weapons (missile can hit the orphanage instead of the real target) or medical imaging (Doc is going to think cancer is metastasized when it isn't or in the wrong place). Industrial DACs are just like 6DJ8s – you get more good stuff. THERE IS NO INHERENT ADVANTAGE IN USING AN AUDIO DAC FOR AUDIO EXCEPT COST – PERIOD. Again, I am savaged by trogs and Luddies on using industrial DACs for all of the wrong reasons – see immediately below. 2. The alleged Yggy AD5791 glitch problem. The shill Mani has pointed out this “massive” glitch with the approval of his tech guru Peter. A number of posters have become fully erect and piled on to the incorrect notion that the AD5791 has a glitching problem. This incorrect magnitude characterization (massive) is so widespread, it has even been used by the forum moderator. It is unfortunate that those accusations are not only based in bullschiit, but the accusers are so lame they are not even aware they are wrong. The glitch referred to on the AD5791 data sheet occurs once per conversion – that's once every 2.5 to 2.8 microseconds or so. The glitch displayed graphically by Peter/Mani occurs every 500 microseconds. It seems these geniuses have not enough fingers and toes to count. Either that or they really cannot read sophisticated DAC data sheets. The glitch pointed out (and agreed to by me as glitch before my surgery) is DAC glitch proper to multibit DACs driven by 2s compliment math at zero crossings, already pointed out by one poster, but ignored by many on this thread in their haste to condemn the DAC. This glitch worsens with lowering decoded output on any DAC. The rest of the world deals with this zero crossing phenomenon is by adding dither, which is random noise just above the level of the glitch. This can either be done on purpose digitally or accidentally with an overly noisy analog section. Mani's claim that he can hear the glitch but that he does not hear the stuck toilet noise or dither at nearly the same level visible in the plot on his reference DAC tells me he is tossing himself off. It is ordinary to employ dither. For the record, there is no dither employed in the Yggy. Then again, the Yggy in not an ordinary DAC. As of yet, I am not convinced that dither is the best to do. That is why the zero crossing is so obvious. If this changes, it is a trivial software upgrade. I'm done. Perhaps my accusers may study 2s compliment math, dither, and R2R zero crossing glitches, and sophisticated DACs in particular before they jump on me again.
  9. At Schiit, I have one senior policy. I never comment on anyone else's product. I may offer opinions, i.e. A PCM63 sounds better that a PCM1702 (or the corollary, a PCM 1702 sounds like ass), but I will never, but never comment on anyone else's product design. This is especially true for negative comments, and especially true on their threads. The reason is simple: I do not want to be perceived as an asshole. After all, that is really low rent promotion. I welcome competition - more makers mean more users. The user can buy whatever he wants. What he buys is none of my business. I build what I believe to be the best, but there is no gun to anyone's head to buy it. I realize no one, especially me, can build a product for everyone. I also have been wrong many times in my life, but that allows me to be better at what I do when I learn from it. I have no expectations nor obsessions about being right every time. This has been my life's work, but it is also a hobby. That is why I am lucky. I cannot take my products too seriously precisely because it is a hobby, and therefore should be fun. I don't care if you like your arblegarble $300 or $50000 dollar DAC better than Yggy. My dog in the fight is building what I like and if you like it too, then that's a bonus. So how about we just all relax and enjoy our systems. huh?
  10. Since it has been questioned/queried, below is an arguably overlong view ofthe Schiit creed/digital product philosophy. I like the Yggy. It creates music reproduction which reminds me of how it sounded when I played in a Bluegrass band 50 years ago. That is why I did the megaburrito filter. The Yggy is the best I can do short of spending 4-5 times the money. You may not like the Yggy or any of our DACs. If you don't like my design priorities or our sound , I may tell you why I think you are full of schiit even though it is none of mybusiness and that is all OK. Here is why. In the 1970's I lived in a market controlled Peru. There was only one brand of cheese available, Queso Laive. It smelled like a locker room. It tasted like ass. It would not melt. It looked and wiggled like Tofu. One would think that they would sell schiitloads of competition free Queso Laive. Nope. Nobody bought it. Instead,everyone would buy much more expensive black market Kraft Singles from Chile. The net result was everyone had much more expensive cheeseburgers with mediocre Kraft singles. Which leads me to my next point – I absolutely need everyone who builds gear which competes with mine. Even though I have either for myself or as a hired gun for others probably designed more dacs than anyone else – it would be impossible for Schiit (or any other company) to go it alone. Imagine a show with only one maker of gear. There would be no incentive for anyone to show up. Lots of gear from lots of makers means lots of attendees. Further, no company in such a lonely position has any incentive to make a good product. Anyone who makes any audio product which someone likes enough to buy is creating audio value. Anyone who buys such a product is supporting and therefore perpetrating our industry, even if they buy it used, for this will probably free up funds to buy more gear. Forums such as CA,etc. promote and support our industry. I need them. We need fanboys,whether Schiit fanboys or someone else's. They all help us, directly or indirectly. If you like our stuff, great! If youdon't, you still support our industry. The only people we don't need are that vocal minority who complain about everything and buy nothing, and dirty up the threads. Fortunately, we have very few of those. The just make 90% of the noise. They neither support nor create anything other than slop. So, if I want to do well, I have to compete. So the step 1 is to sell direct. That makes us twice as efficient. If I sell through dealers, the Yggy all of a sudden becomes a $4600 DAC. Everytime you double your price you quarter your sales. When you quarter your sales, your parts quantities drop. So now your $2300 DAC is more like $6000. On and on. The only burden here is there is no dealer to demo the now $6000 DAC to the customer so the user can now figure out if he wants it. So we send it out for a eval with a 5% restock fee against the $2300 DAC.If we get it back, we have to sell it as “B” stock after the fact. Why do we charge restocking fees? It is not just because we lose money on returns - believe it or not, there are users who would try every product we have only to return it. (Far more than one would think. - No kidding) It is tough to keep prices down as a lending library. If you want to compete you keep prices down. How else to be efficient? You minimize sales and marketing. We have no sales department at Schiit, and minimalist marketing which really is more like posturing our products with literature. Jason would probably disagree, but marketing has only two purposes. One is to sell products nobody wants and the second is to sell even more products which have already reached saturation. We don't have to do that. If the products don't sell, we sell through and pull them.(Opti-Modi and Loki.) How else? How about $100 DACs and $100 Headphone Amps, $170 tube headphone amps, and other products to bring new users in. There are plenty of potential users who are intimidated by high end audioprices but still love music. There are many users with desktop room for a headphone system who may not have room for a full size two channel system who very much want to be involved with better audio. What such products lack in profit is more made up by vast quantities of eager to be pleased users. What else? How about what we don't build. How do we decide? I look at the 125 year history of audio. I have been alive through just over half of that. Let me begin with a short description of an audio reproduction system - how about a collection of media with a playback device or system proper to that media. The keyword is media. Up until a dozen years or so ago, the media was owned or borrowed, but since then rented (streamed) media has become more popular. The elephant in this room is that whatever type/style of media has to be produced byentities beyond the control of those of us in the audio reproduction business. That is, the music providers are those in primary controlof media. In the entire history of audio playback, there have been five major transitions in media: 1. Cylinder to flat 78 RPM records 2. 78 RPM to primarily 33 and secondarily 45 RPM records. 3. Mono to compatible Stereo records 4. Stereo Records to Stereo Digital Compact Discs 5. Stereo Digital Compact Discs to Stereo Downloaded/Streamed Audio (Inall fairness, the last transition above includes lossy formats (MP3).Those of interest to audiophiles would be lossless such as PCM orFLAC.)) All of these transitions required a complete repurchase of old media to utilize the new. Since the majority of audio enthusiasts had more invested in media than their reproduction, there is an enormous amount of inertia/resistance to change in any transition of media.This resistance to change extends to those who are in the business of providing the media. The importance of this fact is not to be taken lightly. This is exactly why there have been so few changes in audioformats. Here is a list of (by no means complete) of consumer audio failed format proposals: Four track cartridges, eight track cartridges, open reel tapes, mini cassette, microcassette, elcaset, deutsche cassette, sq quadraphonic, cd-4 quadraphonic, qs-matrix quadraphonic, surround sound audio, DAT, digital compact cassette, mini-discs, DVD-Audio,SACD, HDCD, and Blu-ray high fidelity pure audio. On probable deathwatch is DSD, whether it deserves it or not. What all of the above formats have in common its hat not one of them had a complete (or even near complete) catalog of music already available on the prior existing format. The above list is a perfect example of that definition of insanity by doing the same thing repeatedly expecting different results. (I should talk – I suckered myself into making a DSD product – the Loki) I've been fascinated watching the audio press rolling over and wetting themselves with excitement every time one of these new format proposals requiring a re-buy of software is rolled out. The latest is MQA. Never have so many words been written about such an under-documented concept. You can bet Schiit will be a late MQA adopter only after some significant portion of the current software catalog is offered in MQA format. I think such enthusiasm excitement happens because our industry is largely bereft of significant breakthroughs. The press worries that their competition will out-scoop them, then the manufacturers race each other in a frenzy which produces dozens of new products of limited utility. I am sanguine, even yawning, until I can either download or stream MQA from companies such as, but not limited to, Amazon or Apple. After that lengthy policy argument, we produce for 99% of the market. Helps keep prices down. Finally,our staff. They are people, not commodities. We select them carefully. The lowest paid of them is over 2x minimum wage, and well over that with bonuses. We pay them a production incentive bonus so they are largely self managing, saving us tons of salary money. We have never had an employee quit. We now have 15 employees. Last year we had 14 employees who produced and shipped well over 50,000 units. This is how its been and what I have learned during and since Theta Digital. To recapitulate: 1. Schiit is a company happy to compete in and grateful for our arena of audio hardware manufacturers. 2. Schiit is grateful for not just our own user base, but for those of our competitors. 3. Schiit is also grateful for our press, forum owners, bloggers, and show organizers. 3. Schiit recognizes that there a few abusers in the wild and try to minimize their impact on ourselves and our users. 4. Schiit is doing everything it can to compete and kick ass; our main tool is efficiency. 5. Another way we do what we is to draw on our not insignificant experience. 6. Yet another way we do so is to sell direct, which allows for larger runs and even lower prices. 7. We make very inexpensive entry level products, which sell by the thousand to a very low maintenance market which subsidizes our higher end products. 8. Our products sell themselves; we say what we mean and mean what we say about them. We do not depend on marketing to sell products which no one wants. We have no sales department. 9. We sell 100% products to the 99% of users. We are not interested in selling media unproven formats nor products. 10. We choose and pay our staff well. Well paid employees bust their asses. Platitudes don't work. Thanks to all who give a Schitt about our beloved hobby.
  11. RE Volume Controls, features, DSD: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/schiit-lineup-comparisons-28200/index2.html#post530101
  12. The last thing I want to do is dirty up this thread with a pissing contest so here is my last retort - Objectively, I refer you to the PCM1704 data sheet which clearly states the maximum sample rate is 96K, period. In fact this very same question is asked and answered on the TI/Burr-Brown website. Of course, it is possible to clock split and use multiple DACs with appropriate group delay filters to extend the sample rate of this or many other DACs. This is a design approach that, FWIW, I do not like. Subjectively, we can certainly agree to disagree not just on that, but on what DACs we like, which A to D converters we like, whether or not you can hear personally four against three million microvolt voltage aberrations, and our reasons for whatever we like or dislike. I never make any guarantees with respect to what anyone will hear with my gear. You do not need my approval to dislike neither my engineering tradeoffs, products, nor posts. I certainly do not need yours to continue doing what I have been doing quite successfully for the last 32 years (make that 45 if you count my analog products). We should both be aware of the fact that God could appear to me explaining to me how to build the perfect DAC with the result that there will be people who do not like that implementation. Finally, as an effort to keep my side of the street clean, I should mention that my comments would probably not have been quite as vituperative had I not perceived your posts about the Yggy to be as passive-agressive as they were.
  13. Some 32 years ago,when I was starting up Theta Digital, we had two initial products: The Theta DSPre was a D/A converter integrated with a volume controland one analog input, and the Theta DSPro, which was identical but for lack of the volume and extra input. The difference in price was approximately 15% less for the DSPro. Even with that small difference in price, we couldn't move the DSPre with bran. They became an extra SKU in the line that consumed inventory, space, etc. I myself used a DSPre – I understand the advantage. Granted, those were the first two D/A converter components offered, and it was not long after the digital audio earth cooled. Twenty seven years later appears Schiit with different focus – Total bang for the buck along with limited product options. We think less like a specialty maker and more like a simple quality maker. This allows us to really focus on value as opposed to the inefficiencies of customization which still plagues many high end companies. The reality that what I like is many times not what my users like. This is why we primarily only offer one color for our gear. This does not for one moment stop potential users from wanting black or even champagne. Since we play primarily in the headphone arena, so far the volume control has been in the amplifiers. Similarly, my DACs are designed to squeeze every drop of performance from Redbook. You can download and stream such music from many different sources. It is music for the 99%. That's what a Megaburrito filter (which requires multi-bit) does extremely well, so much so I bet on it against almost all hi-def remasters. It is the same reason I have not been big on DSD. I know DSD encode/decode math is wrong, but let's say even that is in error, at least as far as audibility goes. DSD and PCM living in the same box have totally different clocks, analog filters, etc. I argue that a high performance combination of that is ugly. They are Hatfields andMcCoys in the same box. If you really are a DSD fan, you are far better off with a separate DSD decoder, which except for the analog filter differences really is far more akin to a Delta Sigma DAC. My fear is that DSD is a format more for the 1% of users. Because of its scarcity, it may well be more likely to disappear, no matter what anyone thinks.
  14. The glitch voltage of the Yggy is 4 microvolts RMS. I just measured it. Thats MICROvolts. That's why it doesn't show up on the rest of Atomic Bob's measurement thread which correctly identifies the Yggdrasil's measurements as being absolutely state of the art. I view 4 microvolts as trivial. It is true that theAD5791 DAC in the Yggy is not designed for audio applications. They were designed for weapons and medical instrumentation, applications which require extreme accuracy. There is nothing inherently superior about a DAC designed for audio except that it is far less expensive, documented in a cookbook manner so brighter simians can design them, and targeted for an unsophisticated, mass market. I find it amazing that audio continues to be the red-headed stepchild of electronic engineering, as far as the "engineering establishment” goes. The data sheets are patronizing to a fault, and have schematics and board layouts to copy for even the least sophisticated and imaginative “engineer”. This may explain the plethora of very similar audio designs on the market. The PCM1704 is hardly an obvious choice, it is only good to 96KHz sampling rates, has been on the “not recommended for new equipment design” list at TI for years, and sounds like absolute ass compared to its grand-predecessor, the PCM63. This would be a better choice for a nearly non-production, boutique build of very limited quantity for an unlimited price DAC, featuring obsolete parts.
×
×
  • Create New...