it uses 2 DAC chips (
Burr-Brown PCM1794 or PCM1794A, not sure) One for each channel) in combination with a high-precision master clock. To give you an example, high-end CD players don't have to deal with much jitter. They were designed for playing CDs at a certain rotational speed. The process is optical - since you're using a lens/laser to read data off the CD (land and pit).
Having a DAC with its own master clock would ensure that jitter is virtually non-existent. With jitter (even in small amounts) we can expect tonal changes in our music.
Obviously, this is not ideal and would degrade performance. In essence, we are reversing the slave to master relationship that exists with DACs vs CD players. Producing such a clock in a custom configuration (to be fitted on the board itself) is a difficult and time consuming task. If it's not precise enough, its application would be in vain.
This site may be more helpful to explain if I wasn't clear enough: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/1104/index.html
I reached out to the author - and he confirmed a small error in what he wrote. "
The resulting sound files aren't just similar, they are identical!"
He admitted they were not completely identical, because different chips (AKM, Texas Instruments, Burr Brown, ESS) can have their own sound signature. This has been well documented on Head-Fi with people who listen to a lot of headphones. I've owned probably too many headphones over the years (including a lot of Flagships) and I can also confirm this is true.
With most headphones, it's easier to spot tonal changes since you don't have to worry about room acoustics in the same way as a speaker setup. And lastly, I'll try to be more careful with where I post next time. Thanks for the heads up.
@djones51 - Exactly. It really doesn't matter what you're using as long as you enjoy it. I think I'll look into it a bit later...I like researching new stuff.@ozzy
looks cool. Thanks for sharing it.