I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering the
following:

1. Benchmark DAC1
2. Bel Canto DAC2
3. D'ack! DAC

Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a new CD
player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.

You can try Model_3 CD Player / CD transport. I have not heard it but
recieved a few good words from a friend who was there about two years ago.
Different model, though.

Ugly, too basic and valve.

"Bromo" wrote in message
...
I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering the
following:

1. Benchmark DAC1
2. Bel Canto DAC2
3. D'ack! DAC

Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a new CD
player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.

Bromo wrote:

I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering the
following:

1. Benchmark DAC1
2. Bel Canto DAC2
3. D'ack! DAC

Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a new CD
player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.

How about a CD player that is much less expensive? Would you consider that?

Try the Sony SACD players, the Panasonic "Remastering" DVD-A players, or
the Pioneer 563 universal player. They all have received positive
reviews, and have very modern DAC's. You can get the Panasonic for less
than $100. Money saved could be spent on getting DVD's, CD's and
DVD-A's. Another factor is that they are widely available, and easy to
return if you don't like them.

Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the various DACs?
I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC designers to play with.
The ICs pretty much are all that matters.

There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do they compete with ICs
from big players like Analog Devices, etc.?

"Chelvam" wrote in message news:4YXDc.130205$Sw.83947@attbi_s51...
You can try Model_3 CD Player / CD transport. I have not heard it but
recieved a few good words from a friend who was there about two years ago.
Different model, though.

Ugly, too basic and valve.

"Bromo" wrote in message
...
I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering the
following:

1. Benchmark DAC1
2. Bel Canto DAC2
3. D'ack! DAC

Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a new CD
player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.

On 6/29/04 6:38 PM, in article , "Marcus"
wrote:

Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the various DACs?
I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC designers to play with.
The ICs pretty much are all that matters.

I have heard (just *heard*) that many CD players tend to differentiate
themselves with the analog stages as they tend to use similar chips (Burr
Brown, Wolfson, etc) - some do discrete analog and some do op amps, and some
tubes!

There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do they compete with ICs
from big players like Analog Devices, etc.?

I think dCS does the ring DAC in discrete components - and it highly
regarded for studio work as well as audiophile. I have no idea how it
compares to cheaper CD players, though on the system I had the pleasure of
listening to - it sounded great with the Nagra tube amps driving some JM
Labs speakers. I think the "full up" dCS stack runs about $20k + though.

Arcam makes a CD player that uses the ring DAC and upsampling all built into
a proprietary IC that is highly regarded as well, how they compare, I don't
know!


"Chelvam" wrote in message
news:4YXDc.130205$Sw.83947@attbi_s51...
You can try Model_3 CD Player / CD transport. I have not heard it but
recieved a few good words from a friend who was there about two years ago.
Different model, though.

Ugly, too basic and valve.

"Bromo" wrote in message
...
I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering the
following:

1. Benchmark DAC1
2. Bel Canto DAC2
3. D'ack! DAC

Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a new CD
player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.

(Marcus) wrote in
:

Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the
various DACs? I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC
designers to play with. The ICs pretty much are all that matters.


Absolutely correct.

There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do they compete
with ICs from big players like Analog Devices, etc.?


In a nutshell, they can't. To get even close to 16-bit resolution, a DAC
made from disretes requires *very carefully* hand selected components
($$$), and probably can't maintain that resolution over temperature. A
hybrid using laser-trimmed components does better, but why bother because
an integrated DAC's "components" are inherently matched and maintain the
same relative ratios to one another over temperature. The fact that a
discrete design is spread out over a substantial area means capacitance
and that makes the design of switching circuits difficult, so don't count
on all the bits settling at the same time.

To get an idea of what a state of the art integrated DAC (2 channels, 24
bits, SACD + legacy, 192 KHz, $6.78 in quantity) can do, see

http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/si...,2145,ContentI
D%253D9344%2526aind%253D%2526resourceWebLawID%253D ,00.html

(you may have to paste that URL back together)

or

http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/pr...C%2CAD1955%2C0
0.html

(that one too)

Of course, if Analog Devices' DAC's are anything like their DSPs, it will
take them a few iterations to get it right, though.

-- JS

"Chelvam" wrote in message
news:4YXDc.130205$Sw.83947@attbi_s51...
You can try Model_3 CD Player / CD transport. I have not heard it but
recieved a few good words from a friend who was there about two years
ago. Different model, though.

Ugly, too basic and valve.

"Bromo" wrote in message
...
I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering
the following:

1. Benchmark DAC1
2. Bel Canto DAC2
3. D'ack! DAC

Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a
new CD player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.

On 6/28/04 6:57 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

Try the Sony SACD players, the Panasonic "Remastering" DVD-A players, or
the Pioneer 563 universal player. They all have received positive
reviews, and have very modern DAC's. You can get the Panasonic for less
than $100. Money saved could be spent on getting DVD's, CD's and
DVD-A's. Another factor is that they are widely available, and easy to
return if you don't like them.

I *had* thought about the newer SACD players - and it seemed to be a better
alternative to vinyl (which is another consideration).

Since I do a considerable amount of listening to streaming audio on the NET,
an attraction to having an outboard D to A would be that it could be used on
the computer!

Most DACs are based on monolithic (DAC) ICs. I kind of believe
the ICs play the dominant role, and there is little that the DAC
designers can do.

There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do you think
they compete against ICs from big players like Analog Devices?
I think the chipmakers win; they have resources, and they
developed technologies like MASH.

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:14:38 GMT, Jim wrote:

(Marcus) wrote in
:

Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the
various DACs? I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC
designers to play with. The ICs pretty much are all that matters.

Absolutely correct.

Absolutely wrong! The main differentiator in modern standalone DACs is
how they handle the incoming bitstream. See the Benchmark DAC-1 for a
prime example of how this should be done. Please note that this DAC is
about as close to perfection as we'll ever see, and it costs less than
$1,000. Compare and contrast with the rubbish being sold at many times
this price by so-called 'high end' companies like Mark Levinson and
Audio Note.

There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do they compete
with ICs from big players like Analog Devices, etc.?

In a nutshell, they can't.

Um, not necessarily true. Indeed, one of the most highly linear DACs
on the pro market, the dCS RingDAC, uses a discrete hybrid solution.

To get even close to 16-bit resolution, a DAC
made from disretes requires *very carefully* hand selected components
($$$), and probably can't maintain that resolution over temperature.

No, this assumes a full multi-bit DAC, which is not the norm today.

A
hybrid using laser-trimmed components does better, but why bother because
an integrated DAC's "components" are inherently matched and maintain the
same relative ratios to one another over temperature. The fact that a
discrete design is spread out over a substantial area means capacitance
and that makes the design of switching circuits difficult, so don't count
on all the bits settling at the same time.

Alternatively, use a high-oversampling design with 5 bits or less, and
such problems largely go away. They are of course replaced by
precision timing concerns, but the performance of modern 'low bit'
designs (both discrete and integrated) is proving the point that 'less
is more' when it comes to DAC design!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Jim wrote:

(Marcus) wrote in
:

Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the
various DACs? I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC
designers to play with. The ICs pretty much are all that matters.


Absolutely correct.

There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do they compete
with ICs from big players like Analog Devices, etc.?


In a nutshell, they can't. To get even close to 16-bit resolution, a DAC
made from disretes requires *very carefully* hand selected components
($$$), and probably can't maintain that resolution over temperature. A
hybrid using laser-trimmed components does better, but why bother because
an integrated DAC's "components" are inherently matched and maintain the
same relative ratios to one another over temperature. The fact that a
discrete design is spread out over a substantial area means capacitance
and that makes the design of switching circuits difficult, so don't count
on all the bits settling at the same time.

To get an idea of what a state of the art integrated DAC (2 channels, 24
bits, SACD + legacy, 192 KHz, $6.78 in quantity) can do, see

http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/si...,2145,ContentI
D%253D9344%2526aind%253D%2526resourceWebLawID%253D ,00.html

(you may have to paste that URL back together)


Isn't it amazing that a DAC with that kind of performance costs only
$6.78, and you can't even buy a decent pair of interconnects from Radio
Shack for that price?

"Marcus" wrote in message
...
Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the various
DACs?
I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC designers to play
with.
The ICs pretty much are all that matters.

How about buffering and reclocking the data stream prior to conversion?

Alan.

Jim wrote:
(Marcus) wrote in
:


Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the
various DACs? I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC
designers to play with. The ICs pretty much are all that matters.



Absolutely correct.


There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do they compete
with ICs from big players like Analog Devices, etc.?



In a nutshell, they can't. To get even close to 16-bit resolution, a DAC
made from disretes requires *very carefully* hand selected components
($$$), and probably can't maintain that resolution over temperature. A
hybrid using laser-trimmed components does better, but why bother because
an integrated DAC's "components" are inherently matched and maintain the
same relative ratios to one another over temperature. The fact that a
discrete design is spread out over a substantial area means capacitance
and that makes the design of switching circuits difficult, so don't count
on all the bits settling at the same time.

To get an idea of what a state of the art integrated DAC (2 channels, 24
bits, SACD + legacy, 192 KHz, $6.78 in quantity) can do, see

http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/si...,2145,ContentI
D%253D9344%2526aind%253D%2526resourceWebLawID%253D ,00.html

(you may have to paste that URL back together)

or

http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/pr...C%2CAD1955%2C0
0.html

(that one too)

Of course, if Analog Devices' DAC's are anything like their DSPs, it will
take them a few iterations to get it right, though.

-- JS


"Chelvam" wrote in message
news:4YXDc.130205$Sw.83947@attbi_s51...

You can try Model_3 CD Player / CD transport. I have not heard it but
recieved a few good words from a friend who was there about two years
ago. Different model, though.

Ugly, too basic and valve.

"Bromo" wrote in message
...

I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering
the following:

1. Benchmark DAC1
2. Bel Canto DAC2
3. D'ack! DAC

Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a
new CD player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.


Interesting. That analog DAC boasts a 24/192 capability for SACD. Excuse
me for this perhaps ignorant question, but does that mean that
internally the DAC converts DSD data to PCM? And if so, how can SACD be
better than DVD-A if DVD-A is natively PCM?

CD

Bromo wrote:

On 6/28/04 6:57 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

Try the Sony SACD players, the Panasonic "Remastering" DVD-A players, or
the Pioneer 563 universal player. They all have received positive
reviews, and have very modern DAC's. You can get the Panasonic for less
than $100. Money saved could be spent on getting DVD's, CD's and
DVD-A's. Another factor is that they are widely available, and easy to
return if you don't like them.

I *had* thought about the newer SACD players - and it seemed to be a better
alternative to vinyl (which is another consideration).

Since I do a considerable amount of listening to streaming audio on the NET,
an attraction to having an outboard D to A would be that it could be used on
the computer!

Given that you can get one of those CD players for around $100, it is a
no-brainer. Heck, it costs less than an audiophile Toslink cable.

If you want a DAC to work with streaming audio, get a portable AUDIGY2
USB sound card from Creative Labs. It's as good as it gets, from
streamimg audio.

I suspect it is impossible for the components to be matched
better than maybe 20-bit precision.

I looked up the dCS converter and I can see it has some technology
to cope with this problem. It is also known as scrambling,
randomization, or averaging, which is similar to what the IC
foundries do. AFAIK, all 20- to 24-bit DACs (monolithic or
discrete) are based on a multi-bit core DAC with randomization,
and of course oversampling is in place. In that sense, they are
quite close in architecture.

Jim wrote in message news:impEc.1387$XM6.581@attbi_s53...
(Marcus) wrote in
:

Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the
various DACs? I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC
designers to play with. The ICs pretty much are all that matters.


Absolutely correct.

There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do they compete
with ICs from big players like Analog Devices, etc.?


In a nutshell, they can't. To get even close to 16-bit resolution, a DAC
made from disretes requires *very carefully* hand selected components
($$$), and probably can't maintain that resolution over temperature. A
hybrid using laser-trimmed components does better, but why bother because
an integrated DAC's "components" are inherently matched and maintain the
same relative ratios to one another over temperature. The fact that a
discrete design is spread out over a substantial area means capacitance
and that makes the design of switching circuits difficult, so don't count
on all the bits settling at the same time.

To get an idea of what a state of the art integrated DAC (2 channels, 24
bits, SACD + legacy, 192 KHz, $6.78 in quantity) can do, see

http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/si...,2145,ContentI
D%253D9344%2526aind%253D%2526resourceWebLawID%253D ,00.html

(you may have to paste that URL back together)

or

http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/pr...C%2CAD1955%2C0
0.html

(that one too)

Of course, if Analog Devices' DAC's are anything like their DSPs, it will
take them a few iterations to get it right, though.

-- JS

"Chelvam" wrote in message
news:4YXDc.130205$Sw.83947@attbi_s51...
You can try Model_3 CD Player / CD transport. I have not heard it but
recieved a few good words from a friend who was there about two years
ago. Different model, though.

Ugly, too basic and valve.

"Bromo" wrote in message
...
I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering
the following:

1. Benchmark DAC1
2. Bel Canto DAC2
3. D'ack! DAC

Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a
new CD player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.

On 6/30/04 8:56 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

If you want a DAC to work with streaming audio, get a portable AUDIGY2
USB sound card from Creative Labs. It's as good as it gets, from
streamimg audio.

Good point - I will use the sound card my computer will have (this one is
about dead at 6 yrs old - CD-ROM won't work and the CRT screen is acting
funny) and see how it goes!

On 1 Jul 2004 00:57:51 GMT, (Marcus) wrote:

I suspect it is impossible for the components to be matched
better than maybe 20-bit precision.

Which is why no one tries............

I looked up the dCS converter and I can see it has some technology
to cope with this problem. It is also known as scrambling,
randomization, or averaging, which is similar to what the IC
foundries do.

No, it's known as oversampling.

AFAIK, all 20- to 24-bit DACs (monolithic or
discrete) are based on a multi-bit core DAC with randomization,
and of course oversampling is in place. In that sense, they are
quite close in architecture.

All '24/192' DACs (including the dCS units) are in fact between 1 and
5 bits in basic resolution, and gain their 24-bit rating by high
oversampling. This is not a new technique, as the very first
Philips/Marantz CD players back in 1983 used a 4x oversampling 14-bit
DAC to achieve 16 bit resolution.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

chung wrote:
Try the Sony SACD players, the Panasonic "Remastering" DVD-A players, or
the Pioneer 563 universal player.

The current model seems to be:
Pioneer DV-578A Universal DVD/CD/SACD/DVD-Audio player

Price: $149.99
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg.../-/B0002ERY6W/
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-JnxU5l1...p?i=130DV578AS

The DV-578A is not yet mentioned in the Pioneer web page:
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pn...046370,00.html
except in a press release:
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pn...269012,00.html

The European model (DV-575A) seems to be priced at 249 euros, which
is about $300 (double!)
http://www.pioneer-eur.com/eur/produ...onomy_id=62-84

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:
chung wrote:
Try the Sony SACD players, the Panasonic "Remastering" DVD-A players, or
the Pioneer 563 universal player.

The current model seems to be:
Pioneer DV-578A Universal DVD/CD/SACD/DVD-Audio player

The DV-578A seems to be very different than the DV-563A, which is still
available in the US from a lot of places.

The DV-578A apparently converts SACD DSD to 88.2KHz PCM at all times.
See this thread:

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/v...b6b732f0825ea4

People have picked up the DV-563A on close-out from Circuit City for $70.


Price: $149.99
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg.../-/B0002ERY6W/
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-JnxU5l1...p?i=130DV578AS

The DV-578A is not yet mentioned in the Pioneer web page:
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pn...046370,00.html
except in a press release:
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pn...269012,00.html

The European model (DV-575A) seems to be priced at 249 euros, which
is about $300 (double!)
http://www.pioneer-eur.com/eur/produ...onomy_id=62-84

Oversampling, often combined with noise shaping, attenuates quantization
noise. It does not improve linearity.

If the core DAC is one-bit in resolution, it is infinitely linear,
ignoring minor secondary effects. But it would take too much oversampling
to achieve 20- to 24-bit resolution.

If a multi-bit DAC is the core, a practical oversampling ratio is enough.
But the linearity of the core DAC becomes an issue. Usually the core DAC
is built with unit elements (still not matched), and the elements are used
randomly (hence scarmbling, etc.). It effectively converts nonlinearity
(distortion) into noise.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:g2XEc.8215$MB3.5340@attbi_s04...
On 1 Jul 2004 00:57:51 GMT, (Marcus) wrote:

I suspect it is impossible for the components to be matched
better than maybe 20-bit precision.

Which is why no one tries............

I looked up the dCS converter and I can see it has some technology
to cope with this problem. It is also known as scrambling,
randomization, or averaging, which is similar to what the IC
foundries do.

No, it's known as oversampling.

AFAIK, all 20- to 24-bit DACs (monolithic or
discrete) are based on a multi-bit core DAC with randomization,
and of course oversampling is in place. In that sense, they are
quite close in architecture.

All '24/192' DACs (including the dCS units) are in fact between 1 and
5 bits in basic resolution, and gain their 24-bit rating by high
oversampling. This is not a new technique, as the very first
Philips/Marantz CD players back in 1983 used a 4x oversampling 14-bit
DAC to achieve 16 bit resolution.

Oversampling, often combined with noise shaping, attenuates quantization
noise. It does not improve linearity.

If the core DAC is one-bit in resolution, it is infinitely linear,
ignoring minor secondary effects. But it would take too much oversampling
to achieve 20- to 24-bit resolution.

If a multi-bit DAC is the core, a practical oversampling ratio is enough.
But the linearity of the core DAC becomes an issue. Usually the core DAC
is built with unit elements (still not matched), and the elements are used
randomly (hence scarmbling, etc.). It effectively converts nonlinearity
(distortion) into noise.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:g2XEc.8215$MB3.5340@attbi_s04...
On 1 Jul 2004 00:57:51 GMT, (Marcus) wrote:

I suspect it is impossible for the components to be matched
better than maybe 20-bit precision.

Which is why no one tries............

I looked up the dCS converter and I can see it has some technology
to cope with this problem. It is also known as scrambling,
randomization, or averaging, which is similar to what the IC
foundries do.

No, it's known as oversampling.

AFAIK, all 20- to 24-bit DACs (monolithic or
discrete) are based on a multi-bit core DAC with randomization,
and of course oversampling is in place. In that sense, they are
quite close in architecture.

All '24/192' DACs (including the dCS units) are in fact between 1 and
5 bits in basic resolution, and gain their 24-bit rating by high
oversampling. This is not a new technique, as the very first
Philips/Marantz CD players back in 1983 used a 4x oversampling 14-bit
DAC to achieve 16 bit resolution.

Oversampling, often combined with noise shaping, attenuates quantization
noise. It does not improve linearity.

If the core DAC is one-bit in resolution, it is infinitely linear,
ignoring minor secondary effects. But it would take too much oversampling
to achieve 20- to 24-bit resolution.

If a multi-bit DAC is the core, a practical oversampling ratio is enough.
But the linearity of the core DAC becomes an issue. Usually the core DAC
is built with unit elements (still not matched), and the elements are used
randomly (hence scarmbling, etc.). It effectively converts nonlinearity
(distortion) into noise.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:g2XEc.8215$MB3.5340@attbi_s04...
On 1 Jul 2004 00:57:51 GMT, (Marcus) wrote:

I suspect it is impossible for the components to be matched
better than maybe 20-bit precision.

Which is why no one tries............

I looked up the dCS converter and I can see it has some technology
to cope with this problem. It is also known as scrambling,
randomization, or averaging, which is similar to what the IC
foundries do.

No, it's known as oversampling.

AFAIK, all 20- to 24-bit DACs (monolithic or
discrete) are based on a multi-bit core DAC with randomization,
and of course oversampling is in place. In that sense, they are
quite close in architecture.

All '24/192' DACs (including the dCS units) are in fact between 1 and
5 bits in basic resolution, and gain their 24-bit rating by high
oversampling. This is not a new technique, as the very first
Philips/Marantz CD players back in 1983 used a 4x oversampling 14-bit
DAC to achieve 16 bit resolution.

On 2 Jul 2004 03:36:33 GMT, (Marcus) wrote:

Oversampling, often combined with noise shaping, attenuates quantization
noise. It does not improve linearity.

It improves linearity in the sense that a 'raw' 1-bit converter which
is only 20% linear between its two states, can produce an output which
is linear to better than 20 bits (or 0.00001%), given a sufficient
oversampling rate. While you are semantically correct, the practical
result is somewhat different.

If the core DAC is one-bit in resolution, it is infinitely linear,
ignoring minor secondary effects.

As noted above, that rather depends on how you define linearity, and
jitter is more important in determining the linearity of a 1-bit DAC.

But it would take too much oversampling
to achieve 20- to 24-bit resolution.

Obviously not true, since the majority of available '24/192' DACs
*are* 1-bit designs.

If a multi-bit DAC is the core, a practical oversampling ratio is enough.

What is that supposed to mean? The first 16-bit players used no
oversampling, the best current multi-bit converters are 20-bit with 8x
oversampling. Both are 'practical'.

But the linearity of the core DAC becomes an issue. Usually the core DAC
is built with unit elements (still not matched), and the elements are used
randomly (hence scarmbling, etc.). It effectively converts nonlinearity
(distortion) into noise.

As you noted yourself, the linearity of the core DAC is *only* an
issue with multi-bit DACs - one reason why they are now very rare.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 6/30/04 8:47 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

Isn't it amazing that a DAC with that kind of performance costs only
$6.78, and you can't even buy a decent pair of interconnects from Radio
Shack for that price?

IN a lot of ways, yes!

But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process - and cable making
requires some hand assembly - so go figure! Labor is worth more than the
materials, eh?

Hi,

In message , B&D
writes

But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process

That's the first time I've ever heard somebody say that chip making is a
simple process. It's not. I've worked for 3 companies that did ASIC
design as a primary part of their business, and I've known some chips
take over three years to design. Once the design is finalised, then the
process of fabricating them is automated, but you have to sell a *lot*
of chips to get your R&D investment back on a design with even modest
complexity. Chips can be cheap because the costs involved get amortised
over a large number of sales, not because you can knock them up with a
hammer and chisel in a garage.

We won't even get in to how much cost is involved in contracting time on
a fabrication line or, heaven forbid, building one.

- and cable making
requires some hand assembly - so go figure! Labor is worth more than the
materials, eh?

.... Not forgetting that some cables are sold for *way* more than they
are worth, even allowing for margin, labour, and painting the little
arrows on.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

In article , B&D
wrote:

On 6/30/04 8:47 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

Isn't it amazing that a DAC with that kind of performance costs only
$6.78, and you can't even buy a decent pair of interconnects from Radio
Shack for that price?

IN a lot of ways, yes!

But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process - and cable making
requires some hand assembly - so go figure! Labor is worth more than the
materials, eh?

And it's an apples and oranges comparison between the cost of a
component part and a finished retail product.

How many DAC chips do you have to buy to get that price?

Stephen

B&D wrote:
On 6/30/04 8:47 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

Isn't it amazing that a DAC with that kind of performance costs only
$6.78, and you can't even buy a decent pair of interconnects from Radio
Shack for that price?

IN a lot of ways, yes!

But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process - and cable making
requires some hand assembly - so go figure! Labor is worth more than the
materials, eh?

Are you serious? How much do you think it costs to run a fab? How much
does a wafer cost? How much is the amortized machinery cost? The cost of
the robotic transports and handlers? The package? The testing? And we're
not even talking about the amortized process development or the circuit
design!

In comparison, the labor cost in a pair of RS interconnects is most
likely no higher than US $0.10. I'm amazed that as an engineer you don't
see this huge difference between labor cost of a pair of interconnects
and the material cost of a DAC chip.

BTW, if labor cost is a big part of the interconnect cost, how come the
cable price scales almost linearly with length? Shouldn't the labor cost
be the same whether it's a 3-foot run or a 12-foot run?

Glenn Booth wrote:

Hi,

In message , B&D
writes

But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process

That's the first time I've ever heard somebody say that chip making is a
simple process. It's not. I've worked for 3 companies that did ASIC
design as a primary part of their business, and I've known some chips
take over three years to design. Once the design is finalised, then the
process of fabricating them is automated, but you have to sell a *lot*
of chips to get your R&D investment back on a design with even modest
complexity. Chips can be cheap because the costs involved get amortised
over a large number of sales, not because you can knock them up with a
hammer and chisel in a garage.

We won't even get in to how much cost is involved in contracting time on
a fabrication line or, heaven forbid, building one.

- and cable making
requires some hand assembly - so go figure! Labor is worth more than the
materials, eh?

... Not forgetting that some cables are sold for *way* more than they
are worth, even allowing for margin, labour, and painting the little
arrows on.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

Thank you for the perspective. It's interesting that the general public (or
perhaps the audio public) can develop an idea that designing and building
integrated circuits is a cheap and easy process.

It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac amplifier as
special.

On 7/11/04 10:15 PM, in article , "Glenn Booth"
wrote:

But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process

That's the first time I've ever heard somebody say that chip making is a
simple process. It's not.

Correction - chip MAKING in operations is a lot more controllable and
autoamted than cable manufacturing.

If you make 1 cable and 1 chip - the cable maker has the advantage, but if
you uhave to make 100,000 the economics are reversed.

On 12 Jul 2004 04:22:24 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/11/04 10:15 PM, in article , "Glenn Booth"
wrote:

But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process

That's the first time I've ever heard somebody say that chip making is a
simple process. It's not.

Correction - chip MAKING in operations is a lot more controllable and
autoamted than cable manufacturing.

Nope, cable making has been highly automated for about a century.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 7/12/04 12:17 AM, in article qhoIc.72327$Oq2.52536@attbi_s52, "Nousaine"
wrote:

- and cable making
requires some hand assembly - so go figure! Labor is worth more than the
materials, eh?

... Not forgetting that some cables are sold for *way* more than they
are worth, even allowing for margin, labour, and painting the little
arrows on.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

Thank you for the perspective. It's interesting that the general public (or
perhaps the audio public) can develop an idea that designing and building
integrated circuits is a cheap and easy process.

It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac amplifier as
special.

I have found that with most things quality tends to rise with price to a
point. Above that point things get needlessly complex and the quality and
performance suffers. I can't see how this would be any different!

On 7/12/04 1:04 PM, in article 8wzIc.62071$a24.29042@attbi_s03, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

On 12 Jul 2004 04:22:24 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/11/04 10:15 PM, in article , "Glenn Booth"
wrote:

But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process

That's the first time I've ever heard somebody say that chip making is a
simple process. It's not.

Correction - chip MAKING in operations is a lot more controllable and
autoamted than cable manufacturing.

Nope, cable making has been highly automated for about a century.

Actually you are mistaken. Almost every cable used has a lot of manual
labor - at least more than typical IC's - coaxial line, etc/.

B&D wrote:

On 7/12/04 12:17 AM, in article qhoIc.72327$Oq2.52536@attbi_s52, "Nousaine"
wrote:

- and cable making
requires some hand assembly - so go figure! Labor is worth more than the
materials, eh?

... Not forgetting that some cables are sold for *way* more than they
are worth, even allowing for margin, labour, and painting the little
arrows on.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

Thank you for the perspective. It's interesting that the general public (or
perhaps the audio public) can develop an idea that designing and building
integrated circuits is a cheap and easy process.

It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac amplifier as
special.

I have found that with most things quality tends to rise with price to a
point. Above that point things get needlessly complex and the quality and
performance suffers. I can't see how this would be any different!

You are missing the point. This amp is seriously bad. To say that
quality or performance of this amp suffers is like saying a car that can
only get up to 25 mph has performance that suffers, despite a $1 million
price-tag.

On 7/12/04 9:40 PM, in article g4HIc.60690$JR4.18225@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac amplifier as
special.

I have found that with most things quality tends to rise with price to a
point. Above that point things get needlessly complex and the quality and
performance suffers. I can't see how this would be any different!

You are missing the point. This amp is seriously bad. To say that
quality or performance of this amp suffers is like saying a car that can
only get up to 25 mph has performance that suffers, despite a $1 million
price-tag.

No, I didn't miss the point. What I am saying is that if you pay too much
for something - way out of line from what you would expect, the quality and
performance, except, perhaps in one or two regards, is *likely* to stink.

I am agreeing with you - but also adding that I am not surprised.

B&D wrote:
On 7/12/04 9:40 PM, in article g4HIc.60690$JR4.18225@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac amplifier as
special.

I have found that with most things quality tends to rise with price to a
point. Above that point things get needlessly complex and the quality and
performance suffers. I can't see how this would be any different!

You are missing the point. This amp is seriously bad. To say that
quality or performance of this amp suffers is like saying a car that can
only get up to 25 mph has performance that suffers, despite a $1 million
price-tag.

No, I didn't miss the point. What I am saying is that if you pay too much
for something - way out of line from what you would expect, the quality and
performance, except, perhaps in one or two regards, is *likely* to stink.

I am agreeing with you - but also adding that I am not surprised.

I am very surprised that a $350K can be this bad. I can understand if
the performance is simply average, but this amp has really no redeeming
qualities, from a measurement point of view, other than looks (and
debatable of couse). How often do you see an electronics product that is
perhaps 100 times the cost of products that do the same thing, and yet
has performance that is among the worst?

"chung" wrote in message
...
B&D wrote:
On 7/12/04 9:40 PM, in article g4HIc.60690$JR4.18225@attbi_s54,
"chung"
wrote:

It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac
amplifier as
special.

I have found that with most things quality tends to rise with
price to a
point. Above that point things get needlessly complex and the
quality and
performance suffers. I can't see how this would be any
different!

You are missing the point. This amp is seriously bad. To say that
quality or performance of this amp suffers is like saying a car
that can
only get up to 25 mph has performance that suffers, despite a $1
million
price-tag.

No, I didn't miss the point. What I am saying is that if you pay
too much
for something - way out of line from what you would expect, the
quality and
performance, except, perhaps in one or two regards, is *likely* to
stink.

I am agreeing with you - but also adding that I am not surprised.

I am very surprised that a $350K can be this bad. I can understand
if
the performance is simply average, but this amp has really no
redeeming
qualities, from a measurement point of view, other than looks (and
debatable of couse). How often do you see an electronics product
that is
perhaps 100 times the cost of products that do the same thing, and
yet
has performance that is among the worst?

It has been said that the perfect amplifier is a "straight wire with
gain." In the last couple of decades even low priced amplifiers have
approached this performance so closely that it would be impossible to
hear any difference, even if it was perfect. This leaves amplifier
companies with a problem: How can they make an amp that actually
sounds different than the competition?

Make it worse, instead of trying to approach the asymptote of
perfection even more closely. It appears that that is what Wavac has
done--marketed an amp with performance that is bad in such a way that
some people will prefer its sound.

Norm Strong

On 7/13/04 11:53 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

B&D wrote:
On 7/12/04 9:40 PM, in article g4HIc.60690$JR4.18225@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac amplifier as
special.

I have found that with most things quality tends to rise with price to a
point. Above that point things get needlessly complex and the quality and
performance suffers. I can't see how this would be any different!

You are missing the point. This amp is seriously bad. To say that
quality or performance of this amp suffers is like saying a car that can
only get up to 25 mph has performance that suffers, despite a $1 million
price-tag.

No, I didn't miss the point. What I am saying is that if you pay too much
for something - way out of line from what you would expect, the quality and
performance, except, perhaps in one or two regards, is *likely* to stink.

I am agreeing with you - but also adding that I am not surprised.

I am very surprised that a $350K can be this bad. I can understand if
the performance is simply average, but this amp has really no redeeming
qualities, from a measurement point of view, other than looks (and
debatable of couse). How often do you see an electronics product that is
perhaps 100 times the cost of products that do the same thing, and yet
has performance that is among the worst?

I suppose as rare as it is, here is one.

One question that is fair - is what was its design goal? (I didn't read the
review myself) If it is like the Japanese SET amps with silver wound
transformers that are upwards of $20k - and lots of even harmonic distortion
- perhaps this is a definitive example?

I don't know. But a lot of times an expensive car above $150k or so,
features start disappearing, reliability drops somewhat, and things most
people would consider basic about the vehicle start disappearing. But the
one or two things that they focus upon tend to be superlative, all else
suffers...

On 7/14/04 6:38 PM, in article , "normanstrong"
wrote:

Make it worse, instead of trying to approach the asymptote of
perfection even more closely. It appears that that is what Wavac has
done--marketed an amp with performance that is bad in such a way that
some people will prefer its sound.

At $350,000 it is hardly "marketing" an amp at least to any kind of sizeable
market - instead I think they making a statement.

B&D wrote:

On 7/13/04 11:53 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

B&D wrote:
On 7/12/04 9:40 PM, in article g4HIc.60690$JR4.18225@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac amplifier as
special.

I have found that with most things quality tends to rise with price to a
point. Above that point things get needlessly complex and the quality and
performance suffers. I can't see how this would be any different!

You are missing the point. This amp is seriously bad. To say that
quality or performance of this amp suffers is like saying a car that can
only get up to 25 mph has performance that suffers, despite a $1 million
price-tag.

No, I didn't miss the point. What I am saying is that if you pay too much
for something - way out of line from what you would expect, the quality and
performance, except, perhaps in one or two regards, is *likely* to stink.

I am agreeing with you - but also adding that I am not surprised.

I am very surprised that a $350K can be this bad. I can understand if
the performance is simply average, but this amp has really no redeeming
qualities, from a measurement point of view, other than looks (and
debatable of couse). How often do you see an electronics product that is
perhaps 100 times the cost of products that do the same thing, and yet
has performance that is among the worst?

I suppose as rare as it is, here is one.

One question that is fair - is what was its design goal? (I didn't read the
review myself)

Youi mean you've been frequently posting in this thread, and you still
have not read the review or the measurements! Wow!

If it is like the Japanese SET amps with silver wound
transformers that are upwards of $20k - and lots of even harmonic distortion
- perhaps this is a definitive example?

I don't know. But a lot of times an expensive car above $150k or so,
features start disappearing, reliability drops somewhat, and things most
people would consider basic about the vehicle start disappearing. But the
one or two things that they focus upon tend to be superlative, all else
suffers...

To make the comparison fair, it would be like a car that costs $4
million. That is outpowered by just about every car at 1% of its price.

normanstrong wrote:

It has been said that the perfect amplifier is a "straight wire with
gain." In the last couple of decades even low priced amplifiers have
approached this performance so closely that it would be impossible to
hear any difference, even if it was perfect. This leaves amplifier
companies with a problem: How can they make an amp that actually
sounds different than the competition?

Make it worse, instead of trying to approach the asymptote of
perfection even more closely. It appears that that is what Wavac has
done--marketed an amp with performance that is bad in such a way that
some people will prefer its sound.

Norm Strong

Of course a side "benefit" of such an approach is that it is sensitive
to just about anything, like AC line noise, or capacitances at the
output. Seeing how the output has spikes at 100KHz and so on, it is not
surprising that some loads and perhaps some cables may make the amp
oscillate. Some people call it very "revealing". Did anyone else notice
that the balanced input simply has one side grounded?

On 7/14/04 11:02 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

I suppose as rare as it is, here is one.

One question that is fair - is what was its design goal? (I didn't read the
review myself)

Youi mean you've been frequently posting in this thread, and you still
have not read the review or the measurements! Wow!

If it is like the Japanese SET amps with silver wound
transformers that are upwards of $20k - and lots of even harmonic distortion
- perhaps this is a definitive example?

I don't know. But a lot of times an expensive car above $150k or so,
features start disappearing, reliability drops somewhat, and things most
people would consider basic about the vehicle start disappearing. But the
one or two things that they focus upon tend to be superlative, all else
suffers...

To make the comparison fair, it would be like a car that costs $4
million. That is outpowered by just about every car at 1% of its price.

I am sure you can find a car or two that would cost that much - be a custom
job, too.