2. digital
  3. 1297184786

Why do I always like a source with Burr Brown DAC?

I have always been pretty finicky about picking up the source component. Like most audiophiles I ask for everything from detail, dynamics, transparency, PRAT etc..but most importantly I look for accurate tonality. It is pretty surprising that while many CD players try to sound like analog and many others try to sound nice and romantic....basically there are many CDPs designed and aimed to sound nice to the ears, however most of them try to achieve it by trying to sound rich, sometimes rolled off, sometimes too warm etc. Very few retain the tonality intact and almost every time I notice them instantly and develop a liking for them pretty soon. Interestingly almost every time I have liked a source for its accurate tonality it has turned out that it contains one or the other version of Burr Brown DACs. I dont know what they do but somehow they always sound "right" tonally. I know a DAC contains many other stages which can affect the sound but as a non-techie all I can do is relate to this as a pattern.

I would like to know from you guys, if any of you have any opinion on Burr Brown DACs Vs other DACs ?

There is also this debate on Multibit Vs Delta-Sigma DACs which I would like to understand.
pani
sgr's avatar
sgr
689 posts
 
Muralman1,
I'm wondering which DAC chips have it all in your opinion?
I have studied the different DAC chips themselves just the equipment. I guess I should pay more attention to what kind of DAC chips in each piece of equipment I purchase. Right now, the DAC I use has Wolfson chips. A DAC I admire greatly is the Theta Gen5 which a friend owns, and I believe it has Burr Brown chips.
I'm sure there as many opinions about DAC chips as there are cables, but maybe there are fewer DAC chips on the market and we could catagorize them by their sonic attributes.
Sgr
jax2
3,031 posts
 
Sgr - I'll chime in on your query. I've been enjoying two DACs, both of which utilize PCM1704 chips (of the last of the great multibit chips). To me they sound a more natural and musical, as opposed to ultra-detailed and analytical (actually they do reveal a whole lot of detail but never in a way that makes you feel you're examining it under a microscope). I don't think that it's JUST the chip that makes the DAC though - how the designer uses is and turns it into a DAC could make or break it. There's a whole lot of debate on DAC chips on the DIY and headphone forums, as well as Computer Audiophile and more techy sites. BTW I really liked your Willie, Wayne and Tim tweak on your system.
pani OP
1,219 posts
 
Exactly Muralman1, what DAC chips are you referring to when you say they can do everything ?

Coming to your assessment that I like BB because they use oversampling and filtering...well I have only heard one NOS DAC based CDP/DAC in my life and it was Philips TD1541 based Marantz CD94. Yes, I liked it but it is not my reference at all. All the other sources I have heard had OS dacs like Wolfson, BB, Crystal, AKM, K2 (JVC). Out of many implementations of these the only players which always sounded right in terms of tones always had BB chips. That is why I am intrigued.

Sgr, your idea is nice, can we have a list of DACs and their typical sonic attributes ?
sgr's avatar
sgr
689 posts
 
One of the people who through their continued auditions of DACS on this forum is Teajay. He might be able to help compose such a list. Any thoughts Teajay?
aplhifi
515 posts
 
Pani,

It will be helpful specifying which products featuring Sigma/Delta DACs have you compared to products featuring PCM1704 multibit.

As with all DACs, implementation is critical. IME, in order to properly evaluate DAC devices, they need be under very similar conditions.

Best,
Alex Peychev
More to discover