Question about Burr Brown DACs

There is no guarantee that a better chip will sound better in a particular design. A poor board layout and parts choice can easily make a better DAC sound worse than an older generation DAC.

A newer model does not always mean better sound, it might produce identical sound but do it more effieciently, cost effectivly, and with less power. There is also a good thance that the improvement is so slight that nobody could tell.

If you had a system with 3 identical sources with identical setup, but one had the 1970 DAC, one with the 1972, and one with the 1976, and some Golden-Eared superguy sat there and took a listen, i doubt he would be able to tell the difference each time. If he was actually able to nail which DAC he was listening to with over 70% accuracy, i would eat all three sources.
:)

Audioengr: Thanks for posting a simple and to the point answer.

Slappy: You should only make such an offer if you have a really good appetite or to those that have severe hearing loss / don't know how to fully utilize the hearing that they have : )

Lasercd: Obviously, technology in this area is moving ahead at a great rate. Whether or not a designer / manufacturer knows how to fully impliment that technology is another matter.

Having said that, it is not uncommon for even the designer / manufacturer of an integrated circuit to be up in the air about what makes their design perform optimally and what hinders performance. This is what R&D ( research & development ) by the company using this product has to determine. There are many products using the same or quite similar parts that produce very different results, both sonically and measurably.

If you wait for the latest and greatest, you'll be waiting forever. Technology and use of that technology is ever expanding and ever changing. Sean
>

Agreed with Audioengr, Slappy & Sean.

In general, semiconductor manuf. add I.C.s to their portfolio all the time so that their product offerings always provide the best profit margin to them. I just looked @ Burr-Brown's website. I don't see the 1790 DAC there (in the Audio D to A section) but I see the 1791 DAC. Maybe the 1790 is too "old"?? However, if we compare the 1791, 1792 & 1796 then we see that the 1791 offers the lowest SNR(=113dB) at the lowest power consumption(=90mW). The 1796 seems to be placed right in the middle where it offers better SNR than the 1791 (but not as good as the 1796) at a modest power consumption increase over the 1791 (but not as much as the 1796). Looks like they offer a low power version (1791), a medium power version (1792) & a high power version (1796). I'm guessing from my experience as no further data is available that the 1796 is fabricated in some later technology than the 1792 & 1791 to realize the benefits of better SNR at a modest power increase. Semiconductor manuf. generally do this - migrate their portfolio gradually to the better technology 'cuz they can reduce die size hence realize a better profit margin.

All this does *not* necessarily mean better sound. The designer of the audio gear must know how to use the part expertly to squeeze every ounce of perf. from it. I know this from my experience wherein working w/ the customer on how to use our parts is a vital part of our relationship w/ them. 99% of the time, if we do not interfer, the customer totally botches the implementation of our part in their final product! Not surprising as our ICs are complicated but all too often we assume that if we put the part on the technology shelf someone will come & pick it up & use it correctly! Wrong!

Can't say whether or not there is an applications group in Burr-Brown that the audio manuf consults when they use their part. However, implementation on the audio manuf's part is key to making a good DAC design sound excellent.

Long answer/explanation to Audioengr's succinct & correct (IMHO) answer.