If Robert is talking about a Denon SACD player (rather than an amp, he doesn't say) then the Denon SACD player will not output the SACD layer via coaxial, so if the Burr Brown1792 is the built-in DAC then that's what he should use. I also don't agree with a generalisation that Delta-Sigma (DS) chips are better than R2R ladder DACS. And just finally, the Burr Brown PCM1792, 24bit / 192kHz converter is a brilliant DAC - no need to upgrade anything.
I upgraded to a Holo May KTE DAC this year. I'll prolly never go back to sigma-delta. Also, the effective noise floor in even very high end gear is at 19 or 20 bit depth. Upsampling at the source to 20 bits puts all the noise of the digital side in the 20th bit, and leaves 19 bits for all the good stuff (assuming your gear is good enough).
It ain't that simple. Many high end Dacs are r2r ladder dacs. But you are going to pay for them. A simple Sigma Delta DAC may easily match them for detail extraction but many have a digital sound to them, les natural than what a good ladder dac can do.
I totally agree. As Paul has often said there's a lot more to a dac than just the chip. I use a 20 year old dCS Elgar which uses their own ring dac chips. IMO it still can still compete against the latest dacs in its used price class today and yes it can also play DSD. DSD sounds the best but is nothing new!
Agree. The PCM1792 is one of the Advanced Segment DACs and most of the internal processing is done through presumably multi-bit SDM. Also, modern DACs do not achieve anything close to 32-bit dynamic range. The best are around 21-bits.
Even with thousands of dollars worth of DACs, amps and headphones, for the life of me I can’t tell the difference between 192 and 44 much less 96/44. Processing is everything not bitrate.
If something 'measures better' doesn't mean it sounds better. It doesn't work that way . In the past , seldom has any component that measures incredibly gone on to become a classic.
I prefer the sound of the analog out of my Rotel RCD-950 from the mid 90s over running the coax to either my Schiit Modi or my Cambridge DAC magic. I attribute that to the Rotel having R2R rather than a delta sigma DAC. Of course the difference is subtle enough that it may be in my head, which is the more likely explanation.
The chip is the least important part. The digital filters, power supply, analog output stage, and chassis build (for mechanical isolation) are far more important.
Is Paul simply unaware of the new high resolution capable ladder DACs from companies like Denafrips and Holo Audio, or does he simply choose to pretend they don’t exist?
He's trying to sell people on his DSD\Delta Sigma DACs so he falsely proclaims that Ladder DACs are limited. He's been made aware of the capabilities of newer ladder DACs and chooses to continue his snake oil salesmanship.
Stay away from that china stuff they only use measurements to make them. What music would they listen to for making them...think about it and the slavery don't forget that!
"Time to upgrade - yes" - Perhaps not. Just do some listening, weigh up the cost / benefits (if any). - Save your money, invest in your life and experiences, move to France maybe!
Have cherished Paul for many years for his knowledge and outstanding ability to upkeep PS as a top competitor in the audio game. When it comes to DACS, I will contend that Paul is pulling things out of thin air and has very little knowledge in that area. Same goes for a lot of us older guys. PS audio has some excellent designers helping in the field of DACS. I have used some of PS Audios newest DACs and the oldest as well. To be clear there is no big difference in sound using an older DAC compared to new. If it sounded good then, it’s likely to sound good now too; upgrade something else and keep the dac you enjoy.
I definitely do not agree with assessment. The newer AKM or ESS dac chips for example etc, do not possess higher resolution in sound quality, for resolution, detail, dynamics, with naturalness . Burr browns 24/192 1792a is an excellent dac if it implemented electronically the right and proper way. None of the newer AKM, or ESS dacs etc, bring better sound quality with higher resolution quality including the naturalness of sound that is able to better a properly implemented twin burr browns arrangement 1792a 24/192 dac at all . The new Dacs have not improved sound quality, the only thing that can be done to improve dac sound quality is how it has been properly implemented in the electronic circuit, and that is the utter truth . PAUL you should be ashamed of yourself, you don't know what you are talking about, or you are just telling plain porkie LIE, and that is the utter truth .
My current Sabre DAC has glare galore. It doesn't sound natural to me. It has oodles of resolution, but it always seems like singers are shouting at me.
Exactly. I happen to be a long time audiophile with pretty discerning ears and the pcm1792 with hdcd in a Rotel RCD1070. Glorious sound from that unit it's chillingly great. I have no interest in upgrading to some faster better crappy new DAC. And yes shame for this lame video lie.
All true in general. Actually, I thought this would be an ideal time to mention that while most DACs are obsolete by the time you plug them in, the Direct Stream gets updates to stay current. Actually, a really good differentiator. Even though PCM1792,4 are actually delta sigma, this video got my interest to read how delta sigma works. BTW to the OP. Lot's of people prefer a well implemented PCM1794 to current day DACs. So be sure you are making an improvement to your ear before you dump the old one.
Yeah, the most lossy component by far is the transducer, and above that the room. Fixing room acoustics and getting better speakers for your room will do alot more for transparency than getting an expensive DAC, IMO...
@user-od9iz9cv1w "W" Sorry for the late reply. You said "BTW to the OP. Lot's of people prefer a well implemented PCM1794 to current day DACs" What about DSD1796? I have a Denon DVD-3910, and that supposedly has the DSD1796 DAC in it. From what I read online, that DAC is not quite as good as the 1792. I was a little miffed, even when I bought the player many years ago, that it did not have the holy grail of DACs in it, despite it's high price tag.
@@Hyxtryx It is a bit of a jungle out there in digital sources. I got hooked on diy after following Lukas Fikus blog as a hobbyist before he went into business under his Lampizator brand. Essentially he bought vintage CDPs and replaced the output stage with a simple triode buffer. It was relatively easy to get very good sound simply by tapping into the analogue signal out of the chip. Also inexpensive by picking up these things at a thrift store and a good way to experiment with various chips.
@@user-od9iz9cv1w But all a tube is going to do is color the sound. It's not going to fix any inaccuracies in a DAC. I was just referring to you saying that people still like their old 1792, 1794 DACs, but no mention of 1796. The CD Player I mentioned has 5.1 discrete outputs for SACD and DVD-Audio discs, so that would be a lot of tubes. 😄
@@Hyxtryx Agreed. Lots of people like the sound of those chips. I myself am hooked on the old TDA1541a which has not been produced since the 90s. And yes it would be tough to Lampizate a 5.1 player. You'd need a tube for each channel. Certain tubes/designs can color sound. So can cheap op amps. Neither are desirable. Lampizator created a pretty clean sounding triode amp using a Russian 6n2p triode. It replaced the output buffer typically made of several op amps and the result was no coloration, but just clean clear sound. It does not change the sound of the DAC, just lets it shine through. Some sound great, some not. All depends on what the DAC produces. But at least you hear it clearly. I did several and they all were a substantial improvement over stock. Not for everyone as we all have different tastes.
Great article on DAC's, but it won't work with Hi-Fi SACD players as the only output cd quality digitally, so Robert should not invest in an off board dac. Universal units with HDMI can be converted with audio extractors, but the result is mixed. So a DAC with an Hi-Fi SACD player, won't work, or hdmi from universal players is mediocre at best. There is a transport recently available, perhaps from PS Audio, but it's silly money.
I had someone ask me why go to this effort when mp3 is such higher quality. I asked what they were using, well, their phone. So you think you're getting high quality sound with a streamer, dac and amp built into your phone? Yep, I'm sure that blows away my system. Sad thing is they'd think it actually sounds better cause they're programmed to think that is what music is supposed to sound like.
And ^THAT^ is rather sad...especially for the future of this hobby or just audio quality overall. I always wince when I see people spend $$$$ on the latest QLED or OLED 8K HDTV, but then use the tinny sounding crappy built-in speakers. Jeez...Or almost as worse, a $100 soundbar.
@@rosswarren436(& andrew jackson) Agreed in every respect. Another technological backslide in my opinion are many current generation, remastered older recordings that have much improved instrument clarity, but sadly have badly overblown and over-compressed volume levels, which tends to pretty much flatline their dynamic range in many cases. I assume this is for catering to all the dedicated phone and/or portable music player fans who apparently only listen in noisy environments and have zero appreciation for the original recording's quietest passages being, well, quiet. I get that there are a lot of genres where everything is so over processed, autotuned, and workstation reedited to begin with so, like, what the hell does it actually matter, but I really wish they would maybe offer the user the option of purchasing a remastered version that has not been compressed and boosted to the extreme. I prefer dynamics to remain dynamic!
@@usaturnuranus indeed. The so-called "loudness wars" are the bane of musical enjoyment. 500 years from now, investigative historians will wonder "What the Hell were they thinking"....
I totally agree. There has been a huge improvement in integrated DAC production technologies, and the present AKM and ESS are definitely better than old PCM63, 1704 etc... on every respect. This based on my personal experience.
They are not able to better a duel burr brown PCM 1792a properly implemented and excellently executed dac, in improving sound quality full stop . Although Denon is no where near a high level of quality, with neither a high quality of implementation of audio circuitry full stop for high resolution quality audio full stop .
one of the first time i think ive started to be able to understand some of the EE side of how these kinda things work! sounds similar to how modern motherboards have several power phases, with higher end ones allowing for more and more minute adjustments to dial in settings for overclocks
Mostly I am agree with you Paul, but strongly not about this 😅 First PCM1792 is delta sigma, second the newer off the shelf DAC is all delta sigma which offer higher bit & sampling rate, but not higher sound quality. The PCM63, PCM1704, AD1865, AD1862 or even the ancient TDA1541 is far better than today delta sigma DAC. How great? They offer more likely human sound and music. I hope you take out the old DAC you have and try it, cheers😊
I have an ancient Magnavox CD player that uses the TDA1541. I'll keep using that thing until it ever finally dies. Yeah, I have newer CD players (Sony, Kenwood, and most recently a Denon DCD-800ne) and love them, but that old Magnavox can hold its own against them. The good thing about the recent Denon is that it will play DSD files via a USB flash drive. It uses the fairly old Burr-Brown PCM1795 chip I think which is decent. I do note that the newer Denon DCD-900ne uses the ESS ES9018K2M DAC chip.
Agreed. I am using a well implemented TDA1541a S2 double crown. It is not going anywhere. Clean digital lens style streamer with SOTA clocks and a triode output stage. Superb
I notice on the PS Audio web site the new Direct Stream DAC is available but how much does it cost and can it be purchased outside of the USA ie Australia? Currently I have a ladder DAC and it sounds wonderful, better than the chip-based DACS it replaced. Not sure whether the DSD root is better or not. Why would it be when chips are just multiple resisters anyway. (correct me if I'm wrong)
I found an Australian retailer who has it for $A13,990. Exchange rate and freight make it expensive but reviews I've read suggest it't well worth the money.
Question for all. My preamp crapped out and I don't stream. All my listening is cd but one day might get my vinyl up and running again but it doesn't matter now. Question is buy a new preamp OR replace my Denon DA S1 with a new dac that has a volume control and not even bother with a preamp? Money is an issue these days. Was gonna try a Schiite Freya+ but now I'm on the fence.
What the Freya+ with good tubes adds to the signal a DAC with a volume control can't do. Whether that's a plus or negative to you is preference. The Freya does have passive option.
The chip hardly matters, and bit depth beyond 16 bit doesn't matter much since most music is only available in 16 bit resolution anyways. Even R2R vs delta sigma doesn't mean anything. What matters is the output stage of the dac. The reason so many people like the old R2R dacs is because most of those chips would force manufacturers to create a custom discrete output stage. Most modern chips force you to use the cheap built in opamp output stage and you have no say in the overall quality of the dac.
@@D1N02 better yet, just don’t use an opamp. Figure out what the circuit is trying to do and why you need an opamp. Then design an optimal discrete circuit to replace the opamp with. Chances are there isn’t a perfect opamp for your dac, but there probably is a close to perfect circuit
That is wrong. An the reason it is wrong has to do with the filtering. It you upsample your regular CDs, they don't magically create information that was not there in the first place, but the e.g. harshness the filters add otherwise like with older chips is shifted to where it does not matter. Which is why basically everything is upsampling since the processing power has become available at a cheap price.
So what does that mean for my Sony DA4ES with Toshiba TC927 RISC-based processors from 2002? I guess I should upgrade based on Paul's advice that DAC technology has advanced a bit since 2002.
Old DACs CAN sound great.....I run a fine PS Audio NuWave DSD DAC, UPGRADED as follows: Coaxial input and analogue output jacks replaced with Furutech FT-903(G) RCA Chassis Mount, Gold-Plated Pure Copper Conductors, Neotech 20awg, Solid Core UP-OCC (Ultra-Pure, Ohno Continuous Casting) Silver Hook-up Wire, TCBraiding 1/4" Tinned Copper Braid, Nippon Chemi-con power supply capicators replaced with 2x Mundorf MLytic AG MLGO, 6800uF 40Vdc , 2x Elna ROA Cerafine, 1000uF 35Vdc. Isolation system: 4 x IsoAcoustics Iso-Puck Mini - 6 lbs (2.75 KG) / unit Isolation Platform: 14" x 18" x 3/4" black quartz, 24 lbs., 4 x Vibrapod Isolation Feet, Model 3
Currently available at $525 on Ebay.. should I go for it? Though I don't think all of your mods would make an audible difference, I regularly get parts from Mouser and upgrade things, especially noise shielding and capacitors.
@@dan-qe1tb Yep, go for it--excellent an DAC for the price. Mouser is great for standard spec components. For audiophile parts, Furutech, Neotech, Mundorf, etc, check out Parts Connection in Burlington ON. Totally worth it, big audible difference!!!! Or for a few more bucks look for a Benchmark DAC2--likely my next DAC!!!
Will there ever be an end to improvements to digital audio processing equipment? Does that mean all the previously issued digital audio processing systems can now be considered junk?
No it doesn’t. There are many Audiophile’s that only have vintage audio gear and have no plans on upgrading to anything else. Not everyone is interested in the next new audio toy released on the market.
Would the TI 1795 still be worth considering? I'm looking at the Musical Fidelity M3i DAC at $1300. That chip had come out in 2009. Seems to me, the AKM 4499EX is a no brainer especially if it can take an Ethernet or an I2S input. I'm not set up for either one of those currently, but am starting to see the benefits of these newer connection methods.
Any advice on phone audio, I bought a new phone pixel and sound quality through the dongle is dreadful... I'm getting artifax, the first dongle was ridiculous it was an apple one very low output muffled no top end and the other day I bought a Samsung dongle the outputs is ok and it's clear but I keep getting clicking with echo,, noises on one channel only on note and music but not speech, not sure if it's the phone or the dongle. I have a week to take the phone back! before I can't! Why oh why did they do away with the 3.5 mm jack just awful. Any ideas, I was wondering if you can access the DAC IC from a app??
The Apple dongle is supposed to be quite good, but the EU version is very quiet. The US version is twice as powerful, but if you're an European like me it can be hard to get ahold of one. The consensus on dongles is that the Hidisz S9 and S9 Pro are the best for price/quality ratio, on Audio Science Review you can see measurements and it measures great.
Also, there are apps that allow you to skip the Android OS oversampling from 44.1 to 48khz, like the exclusive mode on Windows, a free app I use for this is called HiBy.
I have had iPhone ‘s since 2007,never had any issues with the iPhone DAC in any of my iPhone’s including my current one 11 Pro Max. The Apple dongles work great. Apple releases the entire spec sheet with every iPhone model they made. Just Google the iPhone model for the entire iPhone specs. It list all the audio and video codec’s. There are audiophiles that use the iPhone and iPads hooked up directly in their expensive hi end audio systems. I know that for a fact. They use Roon, Tidal etc etc. They also use iPhone and iPad thru an external DAC with high end headphones for streaming. I have never owned a Android OS phone including the Pixel. I cannot comment on those devices.
@@ZeusTheTornado He may have something wrong with the hardware on that Pixel phone. If so, he can send it back to get a new Pixel phone. What is nice about those Pixel phones is they are pure ecosystem Google phones. You get fast security updates from Google on those phones. ✅ Plus Google has great open source software. I use all Google software applications on my iPhone and iPad. ✅ It all gets updated regularly on my iPhone from Google including Google’s security updates on their applications ✅
I have the galaxy z fold 4 as my secondary phone since my sony xperia 1 iv is my primary phone. I have the z fold 4 because I wanted portable tablet that I can put in my pocket and the z fold 4 is the closet thing to a tablet since I use it like a tablet , I use fiio q3 since it's a dac/amp. I also have the ifi hip dac but it needs the the usb a to usb c cable to work with a phone. I also use the fiio q3 for my fiio m11 dap. There is also the thx onyx if you just wanna use a usb c adapter, best buy is still sold out of the audio quest dragonfly red and cobalt dac. To bypass the 48 khz on android since android automatically does 48 khz and won't go higher until you use a 3rd party such as app called usb audio player pro. I don't stream my music since I have them on a micro sd card since they are a mix of 16 bit wav and 24 bit 96khz flac files. I could not find any music that I like that are in dsd format. Dsd is not available in the music that i like. When I'm at home, I use the schitt fulla 2 dac/amp and schitt hel 2 dac/amp since the 1997 sennheiser hd 600 what I use as my daily driver. I also have the fiio fa1 iems and the moondrop quarks non dsp version that I use for making phone calls and when I game online on my phone, I use the rode go lavalier mic and clip it onto my shirt. Sometimes I use the sennheiser hd 600 when I'm traveling with along with the fiio q3 lol. I also have a pair of neumann ndh20, however the clamping force on the sides can be uncomfortable.
Paul does not mention that this older Denon probably will not output a SACD digital signal to just any external DAC. So the perhaps inferior internal Denon DAC musrt be used. I have this problem with McIntosh gear. There DAC sucks for SACD playback. Real aggrevating. Sony continues to have a hold on SACD playback which is what is killing SACDs.
The real question is, how AUDIBLE is the improvement brought about by the latest DAC chips compared to ones from 10 years or so ago. Technically the latest DACs may be superior in performance, but would my 68 (almost 69) year old ears really hear a difference? As a simple example, I recently changed the output of my Denon DCD-600NE CD player (great unit but nothing fancy) from the analog outputs to the TOSLINK outputs into my Denon AVR-X3500H home theater receiver to keep the signal all digital through the Audyssey process until the AVR's final D/A converter. Do I hear a real difference? Not really sure. If I can't hear a difference doing something as simple as that, can I really expect to hear a difference using a current generation DAC compared to an older version?
I don't completely agree with this. It all depends on what a person wants. I have a old Denon DVD/universal player (with a burr brown DAC), and old H/K CD player (also with a burr brown DAC) and a newer OPPO blu-ray/universal player. While I think the DAC in the oppo is fantastic, it is also very bright. I have found the H/K and Denon very mellow and soothing sometimes. Just depends on what mood I'm in. Of course. When in loving the H/K it is with CDs only. I have to use either the OPPO or Denon if I want to play SACDs (I only have 2 and only one works with the SACD layer.)
I have a PS Audio Digital Link III with Cullen Mods that’s pretty old but sounds good to me. Would a newer inexpensive DAC from say Topping, Schiit, SMLS etc be a major improvement? Thanks for your great advice!!
Paul - a few clips mention recapping. Are we really saying all audio equipment needs new caps at twenty years. This would be a serious costing in factor if so.
Electrolytics have a wear cycle that's visible on data sheets. I had replaced the power supply ones as soon as I had bought my amp which had been built in 1999, in 2020. Not a huge expense to me, just huge caps. Polypropylenes in the signal path don't deteriorate in the same way.
As everything in audio... time and age doesn't say anything about the quality of a product ! New doesn't automaticly mean better... The ONLY thing you should care of is sound quality ! The dac ship technology doesn't matter... And a dac is so much more than the ship it use for convertion.
"... get a pretty good approximation..."? PCM is based on each sample/ period in time/ ... having a specific measured and quantified value. Each sample stands alone and is basically independent of any others, You can take any instant in time and find out what it's value is by accessing that sample. Only a ladder DAC is capable of actually outputting this. You could feed a ladder DAC a single sample and it could reproduce that value until told otherwise. This is what PCM is based on. All of the sample to sample output levels then need to be integrated/ filtered/ smoothed to provide usable analog outputs. Sigma/ Delta is single bit (3 bit,...) with no reference to any actual specific value. S/D DACs have no idea what the data in a PCM file means. Feed one a single sample and see what it does. S/D takes PCM data as a suggestion. Not as an objective measured value. As does true DSD. They kind of float along keeping close to an ever changing stream. This provides some of the filtering/ smoothing needed to produce an analog output. But does so at the cost of actual technically specified values/ accuracy as a ladder DAC can. This begs the question of, if adherence to PCM is the goal, isn't a ladder DAC technically better/ required by default? Or is it the matter of what you like the sound of better instead?
Yep, that’s what my ancient Enlightened Audio Designs DSP-7000 Series III keeps telling me. I suspect I would be looking at multiple thousands of dollars to do better.
@@ronniefranks4351 solid dac, and with good selection of pcm63p chips inside. NOS is even better. Paul likes to oversample for some reason to astronomical levels, because i guess he thinks more is better - not quite. Sigma delta buzzers yes, it is a crap technology, made to be portable and cheap, takes so much to make it sound good as what r2r dacs do in a beat.
Sadly, this is probably one of Paul's weakest videos.... he never mentioned about HOW exactly one attaches an SACD player to play DSD layer to an external DAC and its challenges...I think I2S is the way to go but is riddled with compatibility issues between brands due to lack of pin out standardization of I2S connections like HDMI, Ethernet ? Plus there are not that many SACD players with I2S outputs.. PAUL ????
You should know that Paul tries to keep these videos short. If he had to go into this kind of detail for every one, they would be long and cumbersome, at least for those who don't want an engineering degree level of explanation, which is probably most subscribers. Paul did talk about creating a segment on his channel that can talk more about the nuts and bolts of this hobby but until then, this format is perfectly adequate.
@@andrewjackson9417 "has" not "gas"...and yes, he has said that numerous times in previous videos. This is one reason I'll never jump on the very small SACD train but instead will purchase DSD files and put them on USB flash drives to play them. Many receivers and CD players have a USB-A jack that allows just that. Yes, you are limited to whatever DAC is inside that device, but most of the CD players in the $500 and up range have "decent" DACs. It is a pity that stupid Sony still wields so much detrimental control, even now. Regarding I2S, it seems that some manufacturers are allowing the pin outs to be known and they can even be changed in software for compatibility. But doing that is likely above the heads of some audiophiles who are not "techie types".
@@gotham61 I'm simply stating how Paul does his productions. And even if he is wrong, it doesn't change the fact that he focused on the crux of the question. I'm not disagreeing with anyone. Just explaining why he may not have thought about what he said and why he didn't bother to address that specific issue. However, if he gets a question specifically asking about proper connections for SACD's and DAC, then I'm sure Paul world explain that in detail.
Every dac with whatever kind of upsampling technology smears the time domain more or less. Result is loss of pure imaging of the sound. (flat). I stick with real NOS dacs for that reason.
Most all the RU-vid reviewers rave about the "wide soundstage, imaging, and natural tonality" of the communist Chinese made R2R DACs compared to most (but not all) sigma-delta chip-based ones. Is it snake oil? Is there any real electrical engineering reason that would be the case? Then I have read some posters say a $300 Geshelli Labs J2 DAC based on an AKM chip set sounds as good (or even has better bass extension and definition) than the $880 R2R Denafrips Ares II. As an audiophile with a modest ~$10K system, I want to get all I can from it, but I don't want to spend $880 to $2000 on a DAC if a $300 DAC + $80 linear power supply can offer 90% of that more expensive DAC. And obviously, it isn't just the architecture of the DAC itself but also what op-amps are chosen. Many say those op-amps have just as much to do with sound quality as whatever DAC chip or ladder is used along with the quality of the power supplies.
You need a 7000$ dac trust me. I tried everything and most of the Chinese high end ones you can't compare what a true high end not Chinese DAC can do! I was blown away
@@Montreal_Audio_Systems not really. My entire stereo is about $10K, so it would be foolish to spend $7K on a mere DAC. I can't see spending more than the cost of my preamp on one maximum. It's like there's no reason to put a 600 HP engine in a Honda Accord. But hey, it would be interesting to be able to do a blind comparison with a switcher between say a $400 DAC, a $1000 DAC, and a $7000 DAC just for the hell of it and see what results I'd find with my 64 year old ears
@@Pete.across.the.street they also make lots of crap and good luck getting it serviced after the warranty for a reasonable cost. And it isn't so much about it being Chinese as about my asking why does it seem that R2R DACs get the rave reviews compared to sigma-delta DACs, even at the same price points, Chinese or not. Say compare the $900 SMSL SU-10 (sigma-delta) with the similarly priced Denafrips Ares II (R2R). Which is "better"?
Not to worry people, Paul is working on his next RU-vid video for tomorrow..💡😀 Maybe it will be about the differences of Audiophile grade plastics vs Audiophile grade metals used with audio products. 😎🤗👍
It would be great if one day you could explain how digital audio works ... 1 bit versus 16 bit and bit depth etc ... unless you've studied all this at college the average person won't have a clue what you're talking about. The sad thing is ... no one has ever set out to explain the basics of this either. All you get is a full blown very technical discussion on aspects of digital recording and transmission which offers very little help ...
What a load of garbage. While DACs have sort of come a long way, the pcm1792 with hdcd has delta sigma plus 8x oversampling plus hdcd. Your lame non research is lame. The musicality was the entire point and my Rotel RCD1070 just sounds good.
