Not the product, but the actual converter chip or circuit? Do you even know which DAC your "dac" has?I mostly use my Parasound preamp which has a Burr-Brown reference DAC. But I think my favorite is the TDA1540, aka DAC1, the first single-chip DAC. I also like the SAA7350GP in my Laserdisc player, it has a strange circuit called Legato-Link Conversion which purports to restore the cut-off harmonics above 44.1 KHz.
Pic somewhat related, USD20400, I have been trying to find a device with one of these installed but DIY'ers and audiophiles have driven the prices up to absolutely insane levels.
oh so it's just audio dacs?
>>109756217Yeah there's a lot to it. For one thing, multibit DACs sound better than 1-bit by and large. But it's easier to make a 1-bit DAC, can use cheaper parts, and it's easier to design them for greater than 16-bit audio too. So that's what people get.DAC makes a huge difference in the sound. Some DACs will render, for instance, the clapping of an audience poorly especially if the signal is quiet, often sounds like rain hitting a roof and not hand claps.
Another good newish DAC is the ESS Sabre, it has a built in reclocker.
>>109756199Designed and soldered myself will never not be my favorite.
Here let me call in some shills.*ahem* Audio Science Review is wrong, the Apple DAC sucks.
AD5360It's not meant for audio but it has no problem doing 48khz and it gives you 10VPP on 16 synchronous channels without extra opamps.You can feed it directly into modular synths.
>>109756496Yeah there are a lot of those data acquisition DACs which seem to be very capable, 8-16+ channels too. Very interesting stuff. AD has like 450-ish DACs, I was on their site earlier.I've always wondered if those multichannel PC audio interfaces used these instead of a bunch of 2-channel DACs. It would make more sense for sure.
>>109756533>I've always wondered if those multichannel PC audio interfaces used these instead of a bunch of 2-channel DACs. It would make more sense for sure.AFIK they don't. One because they want to be able to handle 24 bit / 192khz and these multichannel chips are sort of expensive for what they can do.But for the specific niche I mentioned if you diy it makes a lot of sense.
>>109756533Very few companies, I will add, come right out and directly state which device they use. You have to get a photo of the PCB in many cases.
>>109756199Nece MELFs.
>>109757195UA is a mystery DAC, it's a SoM, with a 10-bit data acquisition DAC doing the 10 LSB's and a custom resistor network doing the 6-10(?) MSB's. It's controlled by an Oki MCU with flashed program, nobody knows anything about that chip. Some Chinese guy claims to have cloned the whole thing but his modules are like $350 and nobody seems to have bought any because that's barely less than what used but working UA DACs fetch on eBay.The original one, 20400 not 18400 or 20400A, does 0.5-1PPM which is one of the best measured DACs of all time including special space and nuclear ones etc.
Another DAC that's still a mystery is DAC-1 ie 1540, it can be pushed way higher than other chips even the 1541 and for whatever reason it sounds best with a 12v power supply. Lots of new designs for the original integrated DAC chip, it's crazy. Prices are going nuts too, overseas they will pay $100+ for a single 1540 but in the US you can find many entry level players from the first few years of CD that have this and the filter board (another $100) for $10 used. Many have shit mechanisms and output stages so there's no harm in shucking them for their components.
>>109756199I do not care about the DAC chip, it's the entire package that matters to me. That said after filtering out the options by hiss, LTE interference susceptibility and glitches all my DACs ended up being ESS DACs. ES9280 for IEMs, ES9039 for headphones, ES9016 for speakers. AK4377 is also good. Cirrus, conexant and realtek DACs all had issues, but I'm like 95% certain they weren't from the DAC itself but from the power stage, firmware and PCB design. Only ancient shit like R2R has actually broken DACs that destroy the lower bits.
>>109756361That's a nice Gamma2 you have there.
>>109756199For me it's the ESS line that hits the spot
>>109758675>I do not care about the DAC chipIt's like not caring about the CPU in your computer or the ingredients in your food.>>109759865They are probably the easiest to use and best sounding of the ones you can buy new.
>>109756199i used to use headphones with a jack to usb c adapter and it was great. i could park, go do my job, and when i get back, without opening my phone, press resume on the headphone input thing, and it would play. then i bought just straight usb-c earbuds. they fucking suck. when i get back to my car, i have to open my phone and press play on the screen, because, from what im told, the DAC powers down and forces me to do so.
>>109756199>it's the dac schizo spammerfuck off, retardhttps://desuarchive.org/g/search/text/TDA1540/
TI PCM5102A... You need more?
>>109756239I thought this was audiophool logic
>>109763134Where's you hear that, the dry earwax chinks at Audio Science Review lol?
>>109762594>out of context quote>food analogyCertified 90 IQ post.
>>109763834You'd be happy with anything, really. It's weird.
>>109763956The DAC chip is not even in the top 3 most important things in a DAC so yeah.
>>109764019It's the most important thing, then probably power supply and output stage.
>>109764051Completely backwards.
>>109756199In 2026, and above the bare minimum price range, does it even make a difference? Asking genuinely and not trying to be a dick. I'm not much of an audiophile, but in music the consensus seems be that $150 audio interfaces (where you send your instruments through a pre-amp and analogue to digital converter, and the signal comes to your headphones through a DAC and amp) are basically identical to $1000 interfaces outside of the amount of inputs and some nice-to-have features. I'd imagine it's similar when buying stand alone components. Obviously, there will be an exception with components that are deliberately meant to "colour" the audio, but even then I'd expect them to just sound different, not better or worse, and for the differences to be (in principle) replicable through simple EQ
You can look at the datasheet of any modern DAC chip and they're all going to have absurd specs like >120dB dynamic range, SNR, THD+N, but none of the real products with that chip are going to be anywhere close to those specs. Because it's not the bottleneck.
>>109764076wrong>>109764115yep the nicer DACs will have balanced outputs, lots of really nice older USB audio interfaces for pro or home studio are great toootherwise it's more or less going to OK, but some DACs are worse than others and on certain material you can hear it
Chord still shits on all chips
Haven't DACs been a solved thing for like 30 years now to where there's literally no difference between all of them?
>>109756199>it has a strange circuit called Legato-Link Conversion which purports to restore the cut-off harmonics above 44.1 KHz.sounds like a total load of bullshit
CM9882A
