DACs; quality and sound

[edmcanuck]

I basically said the same thing earlier, but I am changing my mind a little now that I see the difference in prices between the DACs. In a multichannel situation you need quite a few of DACs in a mid end player such as the 3930. The cost difference between the 1796 and the 1792 is >$10. Say you multiply this by 4, that's $40. By the time you factor in the profit margin, this can easily add $100 for each player. The low prices you cited are probably for huge volumes, if that's the case (just guessing) and assuming Denon sells much more 3930 than 5910, the cost difference between the DACs will be even greater. There may also be cost difference between the chipset and analog circuits associated with the DACs.

I still agree the cost differential is not that significant, but it does add up to the point where Denon can justify not putting those high end 1792 in their 3930s, especially when they know full well there is no audible difference between the 1792 and 1796.

In a multichannel receiver, you need 3 DACs... they handle 2 channels each and there are only 6 channels (5.1), except the 1792 which I think handles all 6 itself. The prices are for shipments of 100. That's what Denon pays for them, there's no reason to mark them up... you don't buy your receiver piece by piece. The higher-spec'd DACs match with higher-spec'd ADCs, op-amps, chipsets, etc. which is where the costs go up a bit. But ultimately, the circuitry is not the cash-centre of things. And again, it doesn't matter because the differences are still indistinguishable

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

DobyBlue posted this:

PCM-1791: 113dB SNR: Yamaha V1800 & 3800, Denon 3808, 4308, 5805, DVD-2930
PCM-1796: 123dB SNR: Onkyo 805/875/905, Denon 5308, DVD-3930CI, DVD-3910
PCM-1792: 132dB SNR: Yamaha RX-Z9 and RX-Z11, Denon 5805ci and DVD-5910

The PCM-1796 & 1792 are supposed to be capable of Straight DSD -> Analog conversion, whereas the PCM-1791 requires one more step: DSD -> PCM -> Analog conversion.

Correction on the Yamaha Z11: it appears to have the PCM-1796, not the PCM-1792. Sorry about that.

So basically, the only components I know of (I'm sure there are others) that have the PCM-1792 are the Denon 5805CI and the DVD-5910 and Yamaha Z9.

The $7,000 Denon AVP-A1HDCI pre-pro, $5,200 Denon AVR-5308, $5,500 Yamaha RX-Z11, Denon DVD-3910 & 3930CI, and the Onkyo 805/875/905 receivers have the PCM-1796.

Kudos to Onkyo for putting a top-notch DAC in their $730 SR805 receiver!
http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-SR805-Channel-Theater-Receiver/dp/B000OBJW1S

I'm sure the IMPLEMENTATION of these DACs in the Onkyos may not be as top-notch as the $7,000 Denon AVP-A1, but it's still great anyway.

EDIT: Interesting that the older Yamaha Z9 has the higher-end PCM-1792 DACs, but the newer Z11 has the PCM-1796 DACs.

 

[B3Nut]

Count me in as a continued CD player user, though my main system spins discs in an Onkyo universal player. I can play my PC through the main rig, and the WMA lossless files sound superb (the only way I could tell the difference in a DBT would be if Vista hiccupped during playback!), but I just don't like playing music off the computer much...it seems fake. I like a physical package and disc...that's also a reason why I still like playing vinyl records. It's psychological to be sure, but computers are such ephemeral beasts (and yes, I do have a regular backup scheme), a physical disc seems more concrete. That said, I would love a squeezebox for my upstairs system...there's something to be said for convenience in many cases.

 

[Seth=L]

You never know. If we did a bias-controlled double-blinded study, people might just prefer those antique CD players over the new Denons.

I doubt it.

 

[mtrycrafts]

You never know. If we did a bias-controlled double-blinded study, people might just prefer those antique CD players over the new Denons.

How would they do that if they cannot see which is which?
If they can pick one out statistically speaking, then there is an audible difference, then you can pick. Or, you can peek and select the antique one

 

[PENG]

In a multichannel receiver, you need 3 DACs... they handle 2 channels each and there are only 6 channels (5.1), except the 1792 which I think handles all 6 itself. The prices are for shipments of 100. That's what Denon pays for them, there's no reason to mark them up... you don't buy your receiver piece by piece. The higher-spec'd DACs match with higher-spec'd ADCs, op-amps, chipsets, etc. which is where the costs go up a bit. But ultimately, the circuitry is not the cash-centre of things. And again, it doesn't matter because the differences are still indistinguishable

I was referring to the 3808, 4308, 5308, 5805. They are have 8 (7.1) or more channels, not 6, hence they need more than 3 DACs. Even the 3930 has more than 3 DAC because they have two DAC dedicated to the stereo channels. I do agree the audible differences will be hardly distinguisable if at all, between the 1791, 1792 and 1796.

The point I tried to make was, until I saw the price difference between the 1791 & 1792 that you posted, I did think cost would be the reason why they did not standardize on the higher end 1792. Now I know the difference (>$10) is not that insignificant especially when you multiply it by at least 4 to cover all the channels plus the potentially higher cost resulting from the matching chipset/circuitry.

 

[edmcanuck]

Even the 3930 has more than 3 DAC because they have two DAC dedicated to the stereo channels.

No it doesn't.

I do agree the audible differences will be hardly distinguisable if at all, between the 1791, 1792 and 1796.

Not "hardly" ... it's not at all! None, zero, never has there been a proven example of an ABX that suggests you can tell the difference between any two modern DACs. Start the reading here:

http://www.matrixhifi.com/pruebasciegas.htm
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx.htm

 

[mtrycrafts]

If it helps, our group was unable to find an audible difference between any two DAC's or CD players manufactured after about 1990, regardless of the DAC chip used or the manufacturer or price of units involved. We couldn't get a statistically meaningful audible difference between a $3500 CD player with a 24 bit DAC and a $120 portable CD player with a 1 bit DAC. They all sounded the same in bias controlled listening tests. So I wouldn't spend a second worrying about the brand of chip used in a player or receiver. It is all marketing.

That is also supported by The $ensible Sound $80 RCA carousel and others costing $1000s

CD Player Comparison, The Sensible Sound, # 75, Jun/Jul 1999.

CD Player Comparison, The Sensible Sound, # 74, Apr/May 1999.

 

[fmw]

Marketers and reviewers have created qualities for DAC's that simply aren't there. It is probably worth doing some reading on the technology behind sampling. The ADC samples the analog waveforms and quantizes them into digital data. The DAC simply reverses the process arriving at the same waveform that was originally quantized by the ADC. The DAC can't do anything else. The type, model or brand of the DAC chip is immaterial. They all arrive at the same place using different algorithms and, in some cases, different bit depths.

Once you have restored the analog waveform, there is an analog stage following the DAC that brings the waveforms up to a line level. It is possible to distort the waveforms in that analog stage but there certainly is no reason to do it and I'm not aware of any units that do it. We even tested a stand-alone DAC with a tube based analog stage and it did the job with perfect accuracy as well.

What all this means is that sampling technology can be considered a mature and perfected technology. It is extrememly accurate and repeatable. ADC's and DAC's don't make mistakes. They are, after all, digital processors. Naturally, the manufacturers of the chips market them as any manufacturer of any product would. But, fortunately, for us, there aren't any incompetent ones. They all do the job with reliable accuracy. DAC's are completely a non-issue in consumer audio.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Man, I bet Stereophiles absolutely hate us for saying that all modern DACs, CD players, Ampa, Preamps, and wires/cables sound exactly the same!

 

[Seth=L]

Man, I bet Stereophiles absolutely hate us for saying that all modern DACs, CD players, Ampa, Preamps, and wires/cables sound exactly the same!

They don't hate us, they hate the idea that there is a possibility that they have wasted their hard earned money. They defend their ideas/purchases because they believe they made the right decision getting into that tier of audiophiledum. That's not to say high end CD players and other craziness don't have a place in the market, esoteric types of gear typically have very good warranties, they look very nice just sitting on the shelf, and they often run stone silent (a lot of mass market CD players have a bit of noise from the cd drive mechanism). But to be honest, even a mid level Denon DVD SACD/DVD-Audio player shouldn't suffer from this problem.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

But to be honest, even a mid level Denon DVD SACD/DVD-Audio player shouldn't suffer from this problem.

Yeah, I don't think my Denon DVD-3910 outperforms my Sony SACD or Panasonic DVD-Audio in terms of sound quality, but the DVD-3910 sure looks a lot nicer physically IMO. The picture quality (after adjusted) is absolutely amazing! Now I know why a lot of people don't even care for blu-ray or HD DVD. When I watched Battlestar Galactica Season 3 SD DVD last night, it looked like broadcast HDTV! Amazing!

 

[OttoMatic]

Wouldn't you guys leave a tiny bit of room open for slight sonic differences? I would still submit that pretty much any device can have minor, minor differences.

Another point to me made is that you can't really prove this type of negative. Just because your ears or those used in test x, y, or z from some magazine or whatever didn't find a difference doesn't mean that 1) there isn't any or 2) that someone else might have a different experience.

Don't get me wrong. I think that any difference between CD player outputs will be very small, if present at all. But I do get tired of this wolf-pack, back-slapping, I'm-so-clever mentality that surrounds this subject.

Relatedly, would you "everything sounds the same" guys think this is a fair comparison:

1) portable cd player -> analog output -> preamp -> power amp -> speakers

vs.

2) digital front end -> digital output -> preamp -> power amp -> speakers

There are several differences there, right? But this should sound the same, right? Each component would be operated within its limits, etc. The preamp, power amp and speakers would remain the same. The difference is the analog vs. digital front end, and the DACs being used. Is this a fair comparison, or not?

 

[Jeepers]

No it doesn't.

The Denon 3930CI has more than 3 DAC's. Check Audioholics' review.

-------------------------
Audio Features
Advanced AL24 processing
24-bit/192kHz Burr Brown PCM-1796 DACs for front channels, 3 additional DACs for 5.1 surround.
-------------------------

 

[fmw]

Wouldn't you guys leave a tiny bit of room open for slight sonic differences? I would still submit that pretty much any device can have minor, minor differences.

Yes it is possible but, fortunately, we haven't found any sonic differences in bias controlled tests. That's a good thing, by the way. We certainly don't want the analog stage of our converters mangling the waveforms.

Another point to me made is that you can't really prove this type of negative. Just because your ears or those used in test x, y, or z from some magazine or whatever didn't find a difference doesn't mean that 1) there isn't any or 2) that someone else might have a different experience.

Of course you can prove it and I have - at least to myself and members of my former audiophile society. We conducted a series of bias controlled listening tests on CD players and found no statistically significant audible difference between any of those manufactured after about 1990. Since those tests I've done about a dozen additional comparisons with the same results - no audible differences regardless of design, price or brand. Again, very good news.

Don't get me wrong. I think that any difference between CD player outputs will be very small, if present at all. But I do get tired of this wolf-pack, back-slapping, I'm-so-clever mentality that surrounds this subject.

Facts are facts. Beliefs are beliefs. You can believe the beliefs or believe the facts. That's up to you.

Relatedly, would you "everything sounds the same" guys think this is a fair comparison:

1) portable cd player -> analog output -> preamp -> power amp -> speakers

vs.

2) digital front end -> digital output -> preamp -> power amp -> speakers

There are several differences there, right? But this should sound the same, right? Each component would be operated within its limits, etc. The preamp, power amp and speakers would remain the same. The difference is the analog vs. digital front end, and the DACs being used. Is this a fair comparison, or not?

I for one have never said everything sounds the same. I have said that we haven't ever uncovered a statistically significant audible difference between any DAC's we've teste that were made since about 1990. To say everything sounds the same is an opinion. What I said was a test result.

I don't understand the term digital front end but, if you are referring to different devices with DAC's in them then, yes, these two sources should sound the same if the rest of the system is the same.

 

[fmw]

Man, I bet Stereophiles absolutely hate us for saying that all modern DACs, CD players, Ampa, Preamps, and wires/cables sound exactly the same!

Not at all. They simply don't believe it. They think people like me are nuts. "Why do I need a bias controlled test?", "I don't have any biases." "I'll trust my own ears, thank you." I'm sure you've heard the mantra.

 

[OttoMatic]

Of course you can prove it and I have

Well, you may have proven something. Now I can't keep track of all the "everything sounds the same" guys around here, and that may not be you. If your claim is for your test, with that system, and those constraints, then fine. But there are those that will say "I can't hear a difference between X and Y, therefore no differences exist between X and Y or A and B and C" etc. That's the thing that you can't prove...

I don't understand the term digital front end but, if you are referring to different devices with DAC's in them then, yes, these two sources should sound the same if the rest of the system is the same.

Digital front end just means that I'm going to use some digital source (probably a PC with an optical output) to feed my preamp. The "comparison" feed to the preamp would be the portable CD player (or perhaps the analog output of the sound card). In either case -- and I won't put words on your screen -- I'm sure there are those around here that would say they should sound exactly the same. I mean, it's only cables, digital interfaces, DACs and line level manipulation that are different between the two. And we all know those sound the same, right?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Now I can't keep track of all the "everything sounds the same" guys around here...

Yes, we like to keep you confused as much as possible.

Well, I consider myself a "purist", but I'm not going to try and convince anyone else that my Denon DVD-3910 and DVD-3800BD sound better than other players.

Physically, they look better. And the picture quality is also better.

And like you, I would like to think that higher quality products do count for something when it comes to sound quality.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

1) analog output -> ANALOG preamp -> power amp -> speakers

vs.

2) analog output -> DIGIAL preamp -> Analog -> power amp -> speakers

v.s

3) digital output -> DIGITAL preamp -> Analog -> power amp -> speakers

#1 & #3 would be the same, and both would be better than #2, IMO.

 

[OttoMatic]

Well, just to be clear, I didn't write what's in the "quote" above...

Does your #2 imply that there will be a sound degradation due to the A/D/A stages? What's the official Audioholics stance on A/D/A? I would suspect it to be that there's no difference after A/D/A and that, if implemented properly, there is absolutely no reason one couldn't recover the original analog signal. No?

As to #1 and #3 being the same, does that still stand if I'm using a PC sound card as the source?