Since sns has written about the ESS Sabre DAC chip, and because Sabre chips were trashed by someone in the MH-DA004 thread as others have in other places, I'd like to share my reasons for going this route. The main reason for the trash talk, I think, is that these chips are used in a great many inexpensive and otherwise not very good performing DACs that can then advertise the same chip as in the expensive DACs.
But the ES9038PRO is probably the result of more R & D over multiple generations and three decades than any digital to analog sound circuit on the planet. Implemented well they are used in some of the best DACs available. For example, the Ayre QX-5 Twenty ($9000), the Mytek Manhattan ($6000) and the Weiss DAC502 ($10,000). Apparently the Meridian Ultra DAC ($23,000) also uses a pair of off-the-shelf chips, but their identity is unrevealed. Could they be Sabres? Like Meridian, by the way, many DAC manufacturers try very hard to hide what's inside. Too many have not heard chips implemented this well and yet have formed general opinions about them anyway.
Call me technologically limited, but I have never understood the interest by companies in developing alternate digital to analog circuits on an FPGA chip, except as a marketing scheme. Nor have I understood the willingness of the audio public to pay a premium for it. At the end, you still have a chip, and to build a great DAC you still have to surround it with great components--power supply, clocks, USB to I2S converter, analog stage, etc. Designers can use a chip like a Sabre, and they don't have to use the full range of offerings of this chip if they don't wish to. They can bypass functions and implement their own, like filters, for example. Designers have done just that. But they don't have to reinvent the basic digital to analog conversion and charge their customers extra for doing it. It takes a lot of resources, pushes the DAC price up and probably takes its toll from other parts of the circuit.
Any talk of FPGA must consider the Chord DAVE ($12,500). I mention the DAVE especially because some audiophiles who have listened to it and the LKS MH-DA004 ($1500) have characterized them as being in about the same audio ballpark. One can believe or disbelieve as you wish. The MH-DA004 has the advantage of a large linear power supply while the DAVE has a switching power supply normally costing far less to make. Beyond that, and that it has an FPGA, I know nothing about what's inside the DAVE though I have read all I can about it.
Just to complete the circle I also considered an R2R Ladder DAC, seemingly the current favorite. R2R DACs of comparable quality, though also from China, cost about twice as much as the Musetec, for a quality R2R has a lot of very high precision parts. I did much reading/research on R2Rs. I found comments from satisfied users around the Web, much like some in a thread here comparing DAC technologies. There were expressions like "a relaxed presentation," "allows body relaxation," the sound was "further back in the hall," it "allows my body to relax" and even that it gives "the ability to go into a kind of meditative state." My own preference is very different. For me listening to audio is a substitute for going to a concert. When I do that, I expect my pulse to be greater at the end than when I walked in. Otherwise, what's the point? Same with audio. A Beethoven symphony is not a lullaby. And do I want a middle of the hall perspective when that's not where the main mikes were? Not me. These typical R2R reactions are not what I am personally looking for.
But the ES9038PRO is probably the result of more R & D over multiple generations and three decades than any digital to analog sound circuit on the planet. Implemented well they are used in some of the best DACs available. For example, the Ayre QX-5 Twenty ($9000), the Mytek Manhattan ($6000) and the Weiss DAC502 ($10,000). Apparently the Meridian Ultra DAC ($23,000) also uses a pair of off-the-shelf chips, but their identity is unrevealed. Could they be Sabres? Like Meridian, by the way, many DAC manufacturers try very hard to hide what's inside. Too many have not heard chips implemented this well and yet have formed general opinions about them anyway.
Call me technologically limited, but I have never understood the interest by companies in developing alternate digital to analog circuits on an FPGA chip, except as a marketing scheme. Nor have I understood the willingness of the audio public to pay a premium for it. At the end, you still have a chip, and to build a great DAC you still have to surround it with great components--power supply, clocks, USB to I2S converter, analog stage, etc. Designers can use a chip like a Sabre, and they don't have to use the full range of offerings of this chip if they don't wish to. They can bypass functions and implement their own, like filters, for example. Designers have done just that. But they don't have to reinvent the basic digital to analog conversion and charge their customers extra for doing it. It takes a lot of resources, pushes the DAC price up and probably takes its toll from other parts of the circuit.
Any talk of FPGA must consider the Chord DAVE ($12,500). I mention the DAVE especially because some audiophiles who have listened to it and the LKS MH-DA004 ($1500) have characterized them as being in about the same audio ballpark. One can believe or disbelieve as you wish. The MH-DA004 has the advantage of a large linear power supply while the DAVE has a switching power supply normally costing far less to make. Beyond that, and that it has an FPGA, I know nothing about what's inside the DAVE though I have read all I can about it.
Just to complete the circle I also considered an R2R Ladder DAC, seemingly the current favorite. R2R DACs of comparable quality, though also from China, cost about twice as much as the Musetec, for a quality R2R has a lot of very high precision parts. I did much reading/research on R2Rs. I found comments from satisfied users around the Web, much like some in a thread here comparing DAC technologies. There were expressions like "a relaxed presentation," "allows body relaxation," the sound was "further back in the hall," it "allows my body to relax" and even that it gives "the ability to go into a kind of meditative state." My own preference is very different. For me listening to audio is a substitute for going to a concert. When I do that, I expect my pulse to be greater at the end than when I walked in. Otherwise, what's the point? Same with audio. A Beethoven symphony is not a lullaby. And do I want a middle of the hall perspective when that's not where the main mikes were? Not me. These typical R2R reactions are not what I am personally looking for.