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

Showing 4 responses by aplhifi

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

Perhaps Alex P could chime in on that?

TI site shows "production active" on both PCM1702 and PCM1704 DACs.

I am sorry to disappoint all mulitbit DAC lovers here but my opinion is different. I went through PCM56, PCM63, TDA1541, TDA1543, Ultra-Analog hybrid modules, PCM1702 and PCM1704 DACs. None of these satisfied my ear, regardless of the implementation. Please don't get me wrong; as we all know, it is possible designing very nice sounding audio gear with all of the above mentioned DACs. IME, it is actually much easier obtaining a nice rich sound with these DACs; maybe this is the reason why people like such designs so much.

IMO again, although nice sounding, none of the multibit DACs I’ve heard is capable of realistic top-end extension and air that is comparable to SOTA vinyl (for example). The other thing is that, to my ear, all PCM1702 and PCM1704 have this unnatural upper-midrange and top-end presentation that I can classify as "mechanical". Maybe people can’t hear it (or does not bother their ears), but to me this is an extremely annoying artifact.

Best,
Alex Peychev
Pani,

Yes, AD1865 is also R2R/Multibit. I've heard some nice sounding designs with it.

I would actually agree that some of the newer BB/TI DACs sound nice. My favorite is PCM1796A. There are other BB DACs with better specs but I am not impressed, sorry to say. The new PCM1795 with 32 bit DF is also nice.

I am a big AKM fan. Their latest AK4399 is my current reference.

Best,
Alex Peychev
I've come to enjoy the PCM-1704. I have a Resolution Audio Opus 21 and Lessloss DAC 2004 MkII that use this chip.

Yes, I've heard these products, including Opus 21 modified by a respected company. Both Lessloss and Opus 21 sound quite nice at their price-points. Unfortunately, I still hear the effect in the midrange and upper octaves I mentioned in my previous post.

Furthermore, I am very happy that Esoteric moved away from PCM1704 and now uses AKM (AK4399) in their latest reference players.

I do not hear the same problem with TDA1541.

Best,
Alex Peychev