Recommendation of a AK4499EX-Based DAC?

[JohnGo]

If you were happy with the M400, HiFi-Express is currently selling the last ones for $442.
HiFi-Express M400 442,00 USD

There are many new and used preamps on the market, but few with balanced connections.
If SE is enough for you, you can look for a cheap Sabaj A10h, relay based volume control, display and remote control for under $100. With XLR you could, for example, go for a Toppling L70, also with relay based volume control, display and remote control.

Yes, I was also thinking about a new M400. It seems that I have special hearing that I can hear more treble with the M400. The rest are all the same, only the M400 is different. I didn't know this until now.
I want to try one more, the Topping DX9 with the same chip. If this is not good, then I will buy a new M400+preamp.
I have an XLR cable and the large display and the remote control are also important.
THX.

 

[Gradius]

More about DSD... hint: neither format is perfect (DSD, PCM, or whatever):

DSD vs. PCM: Myth vs. Truth

DSD vs. PCM: Myth vs Truth

www.mojo-audio.com

Also the MYTH of pure DSD.

 

[Roland68]

Yes, I was also thinking about a new M400. It seems that I have special hearing that I can hear more treble with the M400. The rest are all the same, only the M400 is different. I didn't know this until now.
I want to try one more, the Topping DX9 with the same chip. If this is not good, then I will buy a new M400+preamp.
I have an XLR cable and the large display and the remote control are also important.
THX.

The M400 is not special in any way, not even in the highs. It could be that interference or impurities in the high frequency range mix with those of your amplifier and amplify. But that is not something that is present in the music or belongs there.

The DX9 is definitely worth a try, also because of the relay-based volume control, the additional inputs and outputs and the AK4118 transceiver chip. And no MQA.

 

[Ash1972]

I got the SMSL dac that has dual akm4499ex. I have other dacs too. I feel the implementation usign the chip makes a lot of differenece. For example the RMW ADI2dac uses the older AKm chip akm4497 but it sounds very nice to my ears. The Bryston reference dac uses an even older akm chip,the akm 4490 I believe but the implementation of this sounds really nice. Tbh, you need to know what kind of sound you prefer. I have a lot of dacs in an attempt to find the sounds I prefer. Persoanly, just my opinion is that the Parasound dac 2000 ultraanlog sounds very nice to my ears and the Theta Gen v Ver A is the best out of the dacs I have tried.

 

[Beave]

I like DACs that don't have a sound at all and instead just do their job properly (converting digital to analog with minimal distortion).

Fortunately, most do that job far better than what we can hear.

 

[Svend P]

Tbh, you need to know what kind of sound you prefer

Or not. Maybe start here

Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?

I know there are people out there that think cables affect sound, which is much worse, but there really is no response to something like that, but just to smile and nod. But what about people who talk about DACS as if they were headphone drivers or speakers, and talk about the SOUNDSTAGE...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Roland68]

I got the SMSL dac that has dual akm4499ex. I have other dacs too. I feel the implementation usign the chip makes a lot of differenece. For example the RMW ADI2dac uses the older AKm chip akm4497 but it sounds very nice to my ears. The Bryston reference dac uses an even older akm chip,the akm 4490 I believe but the implementation of this sounds really nice. Tbh, you need to know what kind of sound you prefer. I have a lot of dacs in an attempt to find the sounds I prefer. Persoanly, just my opinion is that the Parasound dac 2000 ultraanlog sounds very nice to my ears and the Theta Gen v Ver A is the best out of the dacs I have tried.

Where do these rumors keep coming from?
There was never an RME ADI2 DAC with the AK4497 (nor an ADI2 Pro).
The first ADI2 DAC had the AK4490, from the end of 2019 the AK4493 and from mid-'21 the ES9028Q2M.

You've recognized one thing absolutely correctly, implementing the DAC chip is one of the most important tasks in developing a DAC.

As for your statements about DACs that "sound" different, I would like to recommend two things to you.
Do a real and honest blind test with your devices that someone else controls and monitors and that you have no influence over. A small warning, though, I've often seen people being (extremely) unhappy with the result.

A DAC that "sounds" is broken, or was botched by the developer. For every piece of music that you hear through a DAC, the artist, recording studio, producer, etc. has put a lot of work into deciding how this piece of music should sound and saved it in digital form.
The DAC's only job is to convert this digital medium back into analogue 1:1, i.e. completely unchanged. And that's why the playback should sound exactly the same on every perfectly functioning DAC, otherwise there is something wrong with the DAC.
If an intervention is made in the music signal, this should always be done in a targeted manner, e.g. with EQ, DSP, etc. An uncontrolled intervention in the music signal always leads to a change in the original and to a reduction in resolution. Uncontrolled, this is neither sensible nor desirable.
And I have not yet seen any developer or manufacturer of "sounded" DACs or other devices who could share reliable information on how and to what extent an intervention in the music material takes place. Most of the time, people just babble about the sound, sounds better, sounds more analogue, sounds warmer, doesn't sound digital, etc., which doesn't say anything at all.
The worst thing, however, is that with "sounded" devices, the buyer is usually not explicitly informed that the original of the music being played is being deliberately manipulated and changed. Such a note must be included in the device description in a clearly understandable manner, because it is the opposite of what is called "transparent".
In my eyes, this is both fraud and a deception of the customer.

 

[Kiko1974]

Where do these rumors keep coming from?
There was never an RME ADI2 DAC with the AK4497 (nor an ADI2 Pro).
The first ADI2 DAC had the AK4490, from the end of 2019 the AK4493 and from mid-'21 the ES9028Q2M.

You've recognized one thing absolutely correctly, implementing the DAC chip is one of the most important tasks in developing a DAC.

As for your statements about DACs that "sound" different, I would like to recommend two things to you.
Do a real and honest blind test with your devices that someone else controls and monitors and that you have no influence over. A small warning, though, I've often seen people being (extremely) unhappy with the result.

A DAC that "sounds" is broken, or was botched by the developer. For every piece of music that you hear through a DAC, the artist, recording studio, producer, etc. has put a lot of work into deciding how this piece of music should sound and saved it in digital form.
The DAC's only job is to convert this digital medium back into analogue 1:1, i.e. completely unchanged. And that's why the playback should sound exactly the same on every perfectly functioning DAC, otherwise there is something wrong with the DAC.
If an intervention is made in the music signal, this should always be done in a targeted manner, e.g. with EQ, DSP, etc. An uncontrolled intervention in the music signal always leads to a change in the original and to a reduction in resolution. Uncontrolled, this is neither sensible nor desirable.
And I have not yet seen any developer or manufacturer of "sounded" DACs or other devices who could share reliable information on how and to what extent an intervention in the music material takes place. Most of the time, people just babble about the sound, sounds better, sounds more analogue, sounds warmer, doesn't sound digital, etc., which doesn't say anything at all.
The worst thing, however, is that with "sounded" devices, the buyer is usually not explicitly informed that the original of the music being played is being deliberately manipulated and changed. Such a note must be included in the device description in a clearly understandable manner, because it is the opposite of what is called "transparent".
In my eyes, this is both fraud and a deception of the customer.

Marantz amps, CD and SACD players are known for a long time "to have a sound", moreso certain existing components that bear the "Ken Ishiwata Signature" badge, and they sold millions of these and were highly regarded among audiophiles.
I don't think this "Marantz Sound" or "Ken Ishiwata Signature" were a rip off, many people liked them and they were made because there was a market for them.

 

[voodooless]

Marantz amps, CD and SACD players are known for a long time "to have a sound", moreso certain existing components that bear the "Ken Ishiwata Signature" badge, and they sold millions of these and were highly regarded among audiophiles.
I don't think this "Marantz Sound" or "Ken Ishiwata Signature" were a rip off, many people liked them and they were made because there was a market for them.

You mean poor filtering and high frequency rolloff?

As @Roland68 said:

A DAC that "sounds" is broken, or was botched by the developer.

That is clearly the case with those Marantz products. You can achieve the same with some upsampling algorithms and a bit of EQ. Clearly these products were made to stand out, not to be accurate.

And even then, I highly doubt many 50+ aged people would be able to hear the difference in an actual controlled test.

 

[Roland68]

Marantz amps, CD and SACD players are known for a long time "to have a sound", moreso certain existing components that bear the "Ken Ishiwata Signature" badge, and they sold millions of these and were highly regarded among audiophiles.
I don't think this "Marantz Sound" or "Ken Ishiwata Signature" were a rip off, many people liked them and they were made because there was a market for them.

You've hit the nail on the head.
About 25 years ago, I worked for about 3 years with several tuners who tuned a whole series of Marantz devices by removing the HDAM modules and replacing them with their own boards with OPA134/2134/627 etc. This also included completely recalculated and measured filter stages, as well as replacing various audio capacitors with high-quality industrial types. Some devices were missing a few dozen components afterwards, sometimes less is more. All of these tuners were very down-to-earth engineers.

The blind tests were really great, as the original and tuned devices were visually indistinguishable. The customer said which device he liked better and then the cover was removed. I attended many demonstrations and listening tests in the 3 years and I can't remember anyone preferring the original device. The differences were clear and in some cases blatant, especially more detailed, more honest and instruments and voices simply sounded more authentic.

There was even a test report in a HiFi magazine at the time where the editor wrote only confusing stuff because he wanted to be honest but didn't want to offend Marantz as an advertising customer. In the end it was clear to everyone that the original players were nothing compared to the tuned ones.

I personally never liked the Marantz devices, but who liked the special Marantz sound? Well.
Many people only noticed later that the sound was not honest. Did Marantz honestly tell these customers before they bought them that they were fiddling around with the music material and "sounding" in order to stand out from other devices?
What should you call something like that?
That only applies to the devices of that time, after that I stopped paying attention to Marantz.

 

[Kiko1974]

You mean poor filtering and high frequency rolloff?

As @Roland68 said:

That is clearly the case with those Marantz products. You can achieve the same with some upsampling algorithms and a bit of EQ. Clearly these products were made to stand out, not to be accurate.

And even then, I highly doubt many 50+ aged people would be able to hear the difference in an actual controlled test.

You may be right, but you need to understand this: some of US like products that have a certain sound. I'm 51, I chose the components for my first "serious" (but aforddable) Hi Fi set Up when I was 20, It featured, if memory serves me well, a Marantz PM-52 integrated amp, a Marantz CD-63 (not 100% sure about the references, I'm typing from memory and that was 31 years ago) and a pair of small and inexpensive Tannoy speakers. And I was very Happy with the sound of that system.
Since then, I moved from stereo to Home Theater back in 1997, and then back to stereo in 2022. I've always had Marantz integrated amps or Home Theater Receivers. My current amp is an inexpensive Marantz PM-6007 coupled with KEF'S Q-550 speakers and an SMSL D400 PRO DAC (among other components) and as usual with Marantz integrated amps, I like the sound of It for the money I paid, and the same I could say about the KEF Q-550, which I got with a great discount as I knew It was being discontinued. And I'm positively sure, both the Marantz integrated amp and the KEF speakers DO have a sound. A sound that I like, that's why I got them, like thousand, if not millions of people around the world that buy this kind of brands. But, what's wrong with that?
Many people like and have vaccum tubes gear, integrated amps, preamps, power amps, Phono preamps (I own a tubes Phono preamp with NOS Telefunken ECC83 tubes from the 1960's), and tube gear are anything but neutral, they DO have a sound, and some people like It and buy It.
Do you think that a superexpensive Esoteric SACD player doesn't have a sound?

 

[El_Arte]

I don’t know why but a little bit of distortion seems to make less fatiguing reproduction of sound.

 

[Scytales]

Marantz amps, CD and SACD players are known for a long time "to have a sound", moreso certain existing components that bear the "Ken Ishiwata Signature" badge, and they sold millions of these and were highly regarded among audiophiles.
I don't think this "Marantz Sound" or "Ken Ishiwata Signature" were a rip off, many people liked them and they were made because there was a market for them.

It may be that this common wisdom about Marantz CD and SACD players "having a sound" is delusional.

I for myself routinely use a Marantz DVD-A/V and SACD player which uses the notorious HDAM circuit as well as two other CD/SACD players made by Sony. All three players are plugged in a preamplifier that allows to trim the level of each input, which makes it possible to listen to the three players at matched levels and even compare them by switching between them instantaneously from the listening position with the remote control when the units play identical discs at the same time.

I have not formally and thoroughly compared all the three players that way. I have only made formal listening tests at matched level between the two Sony players with CDs: no noticeable difference to this day, though there are objective, measurable differences between the two of them.

My casual listenings with all three players make me think that a formal listening test between the Marantz player and any of the two Sony players would be a waste of time, because, honestly, I hear nothing particularly salient with the Marantz. The sound is excellent and transparent with any of the three players. I cannot hear any distortion or impairement which would led me to believe that any one of the three players, including the Marantz, is at fault or alters the sound in any conceivable way.

 

[Kiko1974]

Marantz IS not the only brand that "has a sound". Most British brands like Arcam, Musical Fidelity or Mission DO have a sound. These British brands are tuned for "a sound", the so called British Sound. Even Marantz, if memory serves me well, while doing al the desing and manufacturing in Japan, released several components with a badge, I don't remember the name, that were well known to be "tuned" (aka, existing components modified to please those Who like "British Sound") and these sold very well in their time.
This is like food, some like food made from very good quality raw ingredients, vith very little seasoning. Some like the same High quality food but with seasoning, sauces and the like, that change the taste of the original ingredients.
In my humble opinion, if you're looking for integrated amps os DAC's that don't have a sound, look for studio recording, pro or semi-pro gear. These are supposed to NOT have a sound, and some brands/components can be bought for a much cheaper price than "not have a sound" home use gear.

 

[Scytales]

Even Marantz, if memory serves me well, while doing al the desing and manufacturing in Japan, released several components with a badge, I don't remember the name, that were well known to be "tuned" (aka, existing components modified to please those Who like "British Sound") and these sold very well in their time.
This is like food, some like food made from very good quality raw ingredients, vith very little seasoning. Some like the same High quality food but with seasoning, sauces and the like, that change the taste of the original ingredients.

A journalist I know of once wrote about this story of appliances flagged with an Union Jack and the proud statement "English designed", but If I remember correctly, he spoke of Denon. His comment about the motive of the manufacturer was : "The public believes it; let's pretend to believe it!".

Nowadays, thanks to Internet, everybody with a minimal ability to read an electronic schematics can download the service manual of almost all Hi-fi gears ever produced by the big name of the industry, especially those of Marantz, Denon, Sony, Yamaha, ... and check for himself if there actually are different versions of a particular devices. Although there are regional versions of some products, frequently the reason is to comply to different safety regulations concerning mains and grounding or a matter of providing different set of features or aesthetics. I have to much fingers on one hand to count the number of gears in which I remember there were actual differences in the signal path in almost 25 years of reading or consulting service manuals of Hi-fi gears. Thus, I am very skeptical about the reality of "voicing" a device for the supposed taste of people in a particular regional market. But I stand to be corrected.

By the way, the Union Jack and the statement "English design" is not false advertizing : the UK have a 240V mains distribution network distinct from the mains distribution system on the European continent or elsewehre, save for Australia or Hong Kong, if I remember correctly. Hence, adhering to the UK safety regulations do require an English version of an appliance. The little flag was not a lie per se!

 

[voodooless]

Most British brands like Arcam, Musical Fidelity or Mission DO have a sound. These British brands are tuned for "a sound", the so called British Sound.

I think this is more a very nice story than actual audible differences.

 

[Roland68]

I think this is more a very nice story than actual audible differences.

You're very wrong. Maybe it's because you haven't heard such devices yet.
The best example of "sounded" amplifiers is probably the Musical Fidelity A1 from the 80s.
On the websites of Mark Hennessy and Martin Kühne you can find a lot of information about what was done in terms of circuitry, tricks and circuit gimmicks, etc. Some modifications were also developed to make the device "normal" again.

The alleged Class A "sound" of the Musical Fidelity A1 is divided into 2 areas.
The very unusual amplifier circuit, which is actually not class A at all, and the unusual preamplifier circuit, including the volume potentiometer in the feedback path of the OPAmp.
As can be read on Mark Hennessy's website, this "sounding" was absolutely intentional in the development.

I've heard dozens of the old Musical Fidelity A1s in my life and the "sound" is unmistakable.
However, I like the more "neutral" conversions by Martin Kühne, for example, much better.

Since we're already in the off-topic area, a bit of trivia about the Musical Fidelity A1. Martin Kühne mentioned that after repairing and tuning over 100 devices, he hasn't found two that are the same.
Good old 80s, despite thousands or tens of thousands of Musical Fidelity A1s being sold, each device is unique.

 

[Mnyb]

I don’t think an oddity such as early MF amps can be used as a generalisation ? For a whole industry.
Even if British hifi seems to have to had many cottage brands back when with piddling performance and low power ? Sugden A21 is another such beast

 

[voodooless]

The best example of "sounded" amplifiers is probably the Musical Fidelity A1 from the 80s.

Assuming the latest incarnation would retain the sound of the 1985 model, given that allegedly they used the same circuits, I see nothing to indicate a “sound”:

Musical Fidelity A1 integrated amplifier Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

www.stereophile.com

Maybe the abysmal distortion performance? Is that the British sound? Can we please just call it poor engineering ..?

 

[Roland68]

Assuming the latest incarnation would retain the sound of the 1985 model, given that allegedly they used the same circuits, I see nothing to indicate a “sound”:

The new A1 has absolutely nothing in common with the old A1, neither in terms of sound nor circuitry.
Experts for the old A1 called this marketing nonsense "a complete load of nonsense".

Musical Fidelity A1 integrated amplifier Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

www.stereophile.com

Maybe the abysmal distortion performance? Is that the British sound? Can we please just call it poor engineering ..?

I've heard the new A1 twice, both in comparison to the old A1 and to other amplifiers.
I found it so bad that I never need to hear the new A1 again. There are enough amplifiers for 10-15% of the price that are better.