Recommendation of a AK4499EX-Based DAC?

[DVDdoug]

You're very wrong. Maybe it's because you haven't heard such devices yet.

Any measurements? Any scientific, blind ABX tests?

"Hearing" can be highly-flawed in uncontrolled, sighted, listening tests. And if they don't explain the sound in meaningful terms of noise, distortion, frequency response, or something more basic, like this amp/speaker is louder, etc., I ignore it! If somebody says something clear and specific like "more bass", I'm inclined to believe it.

I know there was "British sound" for speakers but every speaker sounds different and every British speaker sounds different so that's pretty useless. And there was "British EQ". But of course EQ is supposed to affect the sound and the result will depend on the EQ settings. (it was probably whatever Abbey Road was using.)

 

[Roland68]

Any measurements? Any scientific, blind ABX tests?

"Hearing" can be highly-flawed in uncontrolled, sighted, listening tests. And if they don't explain the sound in meaningful terms of noise, distortion, frequency response, or something more basic, like this amp/speaker is louder, etc., I ignore it! If somebody says something clear and specific like "more bass", I'm inclined to believe it.

I know there was "British sound" for speakers but every speaker sounds different and every British speaker sounds different so that's pretty useless. And there was "British EQ". But of course EQ is supposed to affect the sound and the result will depend on the EQ settings. (it was probably whatever Abbey Road was using.)

I didn't say anything about British sound here, but that the old Musical Fidelity A1 is a very strongly sounded device and that this was done on purpose.

Apparently there was nothing more important to you than to post something about ABX tests again without doing any research beforehand.

Otherwise you would have noticed that the whole story about the A1 and the sounding was extremely well documented by Mark Hennessy and Martin Kühne and that Mark Hennessy worked through and documented many points with the original developer of the A1, Tim de Paravicini. This also included the sounding through volume control/potentiometer in the feedback path of the TL084 OPAmp (with 20.5 dB gain), which was a requirement from management for the developer.
Mark Hennessy and Martin Kühne are known to be two very good and down-to-earth engineers and not audiophiles.

But it's like always here in the forum, even facts documented by engineers for 30 years are invalidated with the usual killer argument.
That certainly motivates many down-to-earth users/engineers/developers etc. with specialist knowledge to participate in the forum. Especially when not even the slightest decency is observed before posting to research for 5 minutes what it is all about.

 

[Blockader]

I didn't say anything about British sound here, but that the old Musical Fidelity A1 is a very strongly sounded device and that this was done on purpose.

Apparently there was nothing more important to you than to post something about ABX tests again without doing any research beforehand.

Otherwise you would have noticed that the whole story about the A1 and the sounding was extremely well documented by Mark Hennessy and Martin Kühne and that Mark Hennessy worked through and documented many points with the original developer of the A1, Tim de Paravicini. This also included the sounding through volume control/potentiometer in the feedback path of the TL084 OPAmp (with 20.5 dB gain), which was a requirement from management for the developer.
Mark Hennessy and Martin Kühne are known to be two very good and down-to-earth engineers and not audiophiles.

But it's like always here in the forum, even facts documented by engineers for 30 years are invalidated with the usual killer argument.
That certainly motivates many down-to-earth users/engineers/developers etc. with specialist knowledge to participate in the forum. Especially when not even the slightest decency is observed before posting to research for 5 minutes what it is all about.

Appeal to authority. You are not proving anything.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[nanook]

I didn't say anything about British sound here, but that the old Musical Fidelity A1 is a very strongly sounded device and that this was done on purpose.

I do have the MF A1 and I fully agree it's a "sounded product". I was using it together with a pair of Rogers LS3/5 and this was a combination that always sounded very smooth and nice - never tiring but never really exiting on the downside.

I still have the unit (it needs a new volume pot - they easily start crackling because of the circuit topology).
Once I have reassembled it, I can do some measurements on it.

Being an electronics engineer and having done circuit design and debugging all of my professional life (and as a hobby) I'm someone who really believes in measurements.
I'm still convinced my brain did not fool me on the special sound of the A1.

 

[Roland68]

I do have the MF A1 and I fully agree it's a "sounded product". I was using it together with a pair of Rogers LS3/5 and this was a combination that always sounded very smooth and nice - never tiring but never really exiting on the downside.

I still have the unit (it needs a new volume pot - they easily start crackling because of the circuit topology).
Once I have reassembled it, I can do some measurements on it.

Being an electronics engineer and having done circuit design and debugging all of my professional life (and as a hobby) I'm someone who really believes in measurements.
I'm still convinced my brain did not fool me on the special sound of the A1.

A few links for you and your A1.
Since I've listened to both original A1s and A1s converted to normal volume control, I find that a large part of the sound comes from the "active volume control." I've always liked the A1, but I prefer the converted A1s.
https://www.markhennessy.co.uk/mf_a1/index.htm
Musical Fidelity - the A-Series - hot Brits
Musical Fidelity A1 - often copied, never understood...or: A1 is Class A?...Sometimes the opposite...
General overhaul Musical Fidelity A1/A1-X/David - Revision
Musical Fidelity Revision

 

[Crash Alpha]

I am considering getting a DAC that uses the AK4191EQ/AK4499EX chip set. There are several DACs using this AKM chip combo that are nearly in the same price range: Topping E70V, SMSL M400, SMSL DO400EX, SMSL SU-9 Ultra.

Any recommendation on which one to get?

Which did you end up going with? I am considering the RAW DAC 1

 

[tirreus]

Any recommendation for European based DAC manufacturer which implemented AK4191EQ/AK4499EX chip set into their DAC(s)?

 

[Roland68]

Any recommendation for European based DAC manufacturer which implemented AK4191EQ/AK4499EX chip set into their DAC(s)?

Apart from Chord, nothing comes to mind.
Many European manufacturers have withdrawn from the DAC market or are now only building very expensive devices for a small fan base.
I'm not aware of anything like the AK4191EQ & AK4499EXEQ.

 

[tirreus]

Apart from Chord, nothing comes to mind.
Many European manufacturers have withdrawn from the DAC market or are now only building very expensive devices for a small fan base.
I'm not aware of anything like the AK4191EQ & AK4499EXEQ.

And those building very expensive devices for a small fan base?
I am aware of Lindemann Musicbook II but it uses previous best (AK4493) not the current best (AK4499EX).

 

[Roland68]

And those building very expensive devices for a small fan base?
I am aware of Lindemann Musicbook II but it uses previous best (AK4493) not the current best (AK4499EX).

I no longer have an overview of this high-price market because it has become uninteresting to me.

For one thing, the results of comparisons in the high-price range that I made between 2017 and 2019 were very sobering. Even my cobbled-together AK4497 evaluation board was mostly no worse, and if so, only slightly. Even my 30-year-old DACMAGIC 1 didn't make a bad impression in the comparison.

On the other hand, there were three AK4499 devices that were close to being ready for market, but were no longer produced due to the fire at AKM and Corona. These three developers/companies were aware of my tests and were sometimes involved. Given the problems that arose, it made no sense to stick with developments that were 10-20 times more expensive but offered no measurable advantage. And I'm talking about the €/$500 class; things are much worse with an SU-1 or a D50 III.

There will be plenty of manufacturers in the EU, but perhaps none for the AK4191EQ & AK4499EXEQ.
For example, Audionet, Burmester, Atoll, Linn, MBL, Brinkmann Audio, Mutec, Weiss, Grimm Audio, Rockna Audio, etc.

 

[tirreus]

I no longer have an overview of this high-price market because it has become uninteresting to me.

For one thing, the results of comparisons in the high-price range that I made between 2017 and 2019 were very sobering. Even my cobbled-together AK4497 evaluation board was mostly no worse, and if so, only slightly. Even my 30-year-old DACMAGIC 1 didn't make a bad impression in the comparison.

On the other hand, there were three AK4499 devices that were close to being ready for market, but were no longer produced due to the fire at AKM and Corona. These three developers/companies were aware of my tests and were sometimes involved. Given the problems that arose, it made no sense to stick with developments that were 10-20 times more expensive but offered no measurable advantage. And I'm talking about the €/$500 class; things are much worse with an SU-1 or a D50 III.

There will be plenty of manufacturers in the EU, but perhaps none for the AK4191EQ & AK4499EXEQ.
For example, Audionet, Burmester, Atoll, Linn, MBL, Brinkmann Audio, Mutec, Weiss, Grimm Audio, Rockna Audio, etc.

Given your testing done in 2017-2019, do you think that the music clarity improvement due to S/N difference between AK4499EX (135dB/138dB in mono) and AK4493S (123dB/128dB in mono) would not be hearable? The same question related to THD+N difference between -124dB and -115dB. If not, then I need to ask why AKM offers a DAC chip which might not offer meaningful improvement over the others? Is it just a price game from them? (ESS would be in such a case no better, of course...)

 

[Svend P]

Given your testing done in 2017-2019, do you think that the music clarity improvement due to S/N difference between AK4499EX (135dB/138dB in mono) and AK4493S (123dB/128dB in mono) would not be hearable? The same question related to THD+N difference between -124dB and -115dB. If not, then I need to ask why AKM offers a DAC chip which might not offer meaningful improvement over the others? Is it just a price game from them? (ESS would be in such a case no better, of course...)

So you haven't even read the thread you are replying to?

How about this one. 546 pages full of answers

How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent?

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]

Given your testing done in 2017-2019, do you think that the music clarity improvement due to S/N difference between AK4499EX (135dB/138dB in mono) and AK4493S (123dB/128dB in mono) would not be hearable? The same question related to THD+N difference between -124dB and -115dB. If not, then I need to ask why AKM offers a DAC chip which might not offer meaningful improvement over the others? Is it just a price game from them? (ESS would be in such a case no better, of course...)

You're wrong in many areas.
First of all, the implementation of the DAC chip, output stage, and analog filter are much more important than the DAC chip itself. Just look at the measured values of a Topping E70 and D50 III, for example, and how many DACs with more expensive DAC chips have worse measured values.

The same applies to the ADI-2 and 2/4 devices. Don't you think RME would have used more expensive DAC chips with such a huge development effort if it had a real advantage that could be used somehow?

Have you ever considered what remains, or can remain, in the downstream components like amplifiers and speakers from the differences you mentioned?
The limitations of a system these days are certainly not the DACs. Most people can't even utilize the performance of an SMSL SU-1 or Topping E30 II DAC in their system.

During a professional recording, whether in a concert hall or recording studio, the music signal travels through hundreds or several hundred meters of cable, as well as countless devices and computers. In the process, the music signal is converted from analog to digital and back again countless times, and also processed countless times.
Most of these devices aren't at the same measurement level as our modern DACs, often not even close.

Do you really believe that the final conversion has an audible impact on whether the DAC used is at 125 or 135 dB, when it's already many times higher than the devices used in production?

 

[tirreus]

You're wrong in many areas...

Thank you for your explanation. I agree with major influence of other components in the audio devices chain and that those components might often be the bottleneck of music quality, so improvements in DACs might not make any hearable difference. On the other hand, we do not know. We simply do not know contribution values of all components in our hi-fi systems and therefore we cannot state that the improvement in the DAC chip parameters make no sense. Sure, we might look into tech info provided by the manufacturer of each component but this might be just advertisement, and moreover not all components would have such information available. If we would measure all the components in the chain, found the values and saw that, e.g. the worst is our amplifier with value of 115dB, then I would definitely agree that usage of DAC at 135dB instead of the one at 125dB makes no sense. But we simply do not know, and most of us are not able to measure each of our components and get the results. Therefore, our only option is to constantly improve all components which we might improve to the best we can (financially) reach (carefully listening if the improvement made the difference but in many cases empirical test simply cannot be done (nobody would lend the component for testing)), and hope we did everything possible to have hi-fi system which compromises the music the least.
Now, let us take another consideration. Let us take situation we are rich and we bought all other components in our chain of superb quality, the best on the market. Now, we want to play hi-res music and want to make sure we have the best DAC conversion, or in other words, do the least harm to the signal, won't we really notice difference between 135dB and 125dB DAC conversion? Current hi-res standard, 24bit music, has dynamic range of 144dB (32 bit ->152dB), the value that even the best DACs on the market did not reach yet. It looks we are not able to convert complete information contained in hi-res music even with the best DACs on the market today! Or am I wrong again?

 

[Svend P]

There seems to be a lot that you don't understand. Not we. Everything you can hear can be measured.

For one thing, there is no need for 24 bit for music. Most people can't tell the difference between MP3 and CD quality

Is high-resolution audio audible or not audible and a waste of data?

I have found several sites, articles and tests on the web in which it is claimed that the CD quality music distribution format, 16bit/44KHz, is more than sufficient to preserve practically all the characteristics of the sound compared to higher resolution formats. 24bit/sample and higher sample...

www.audiosciencereview.com

And there is limits to what can be heard:

Audibility thresholds of amp and DAC measurements

Introduction A recurring theme on ASR is whether or not the various measured qualities of the devices are audible. In this post, I'll present some clear and visual thresholds for when those imperfections can be considered a potentially audible concern. I will not explain the basics of amp/DAC...

www.audiosciencereview.com

See if you can tell the difference between a first and 8th generation copy. The 8th generation has 8.4 dB more noise.

Listen and choose the 8th generation digital copy.

Each of these zip files will open into three wav files. One is labeled Reference, one is A and one is B. These are 30 second snippets of full songs. The originals were from CD so all 44.1 khz and 16 bit. Either A or B has been thru 8 generations of DA to AD copying. The other is identical...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Scytales]

Thank you for your explanation. I agree with major influence of other components in the audio devices chain and that those components might often be the bottleneck of music quality, so improvements in DACs might not make any hearable difference. On the other hand, we do not know. We simply do not know contribution values of all components in our hi-fi systems and therefore we cannot state that the improvement in the DAC chip parameters make no sense. Sure, we might look into tech info provided by the manufacturer of each component but this might be just advertisement, and moreover not all components would have such information available. If we would measure all the components in the chain, found the values and saw that, e.g. the worst is our amplifier with value of 115dB, then I would definitely agree that usage of DAC at 135dB instead of the one at 125dB makes no sense. But we simply do not know, and most of us are not able to measure each of our components and get the results. Therefore, our only option is to constantly improve all components which we might improve to the best we can (financially) reach (carefully listening if the improvement made the difference but in many cases empirical test simply cannot be done (nobody would lend the component for testing)), and hope we did everything possible to have hi-fi system which compromises the music the least.
Now, let us take another consideration. Let us take situation we are rich and we bought all other components in our chain of superb quality, the best on the market. Now, we want to play hi-res music and want to make sure we have the best DAC conversion, or in other words, do the least harm to the signal, won't we really notice difference between 135dB and 125dB DAC conversion? Current hi-res standard, 24bit music, has dynamic range of 144dB (32 bit ->152dB), the value that even the best DACs on the market did not reach yet. It looks we are not able to convert complete information contained in hi-res music even with the best DACs on the market today! Or am I wrong again?

144 dB (or rather 146.76 dB with sine signals, to be precise) dynamic range of 24 bit content or 194.4 db dynamic range of 32 bit content are just mathematical results. That does not means that the music or more broadly speaking the sound recorded at such bit depths actually reaches that kind of dynamic. It does not even mean that actual converters (from analogue to digital or digital to analogue) are able to reach that kind of dynamic range, because the physical world where we all live is not a mathematical abstraction in where we can make real all the thought experiments that we are able to do in mathematics. The boundaries of physics is what limits the actual level of performance, both theoretical and practical, of a data converter.

If you like video educating support, Prof. Jamie Angus and others have tackled that issue at the end (from 48'06'') of a video-seminar I have linked through in that post: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ny-bits-do-we-really-need.54846/#post-1992162

They provide some insights about the maximum dynamic range that it is possible to obtain when ambient room temperature, converter power supply voltages and so on are taken into account. They also speak about the kind of phenomenons that correspond to a sound pressure level that would reach that kind dynamic range. We do no longer speak about music, but rather lethal sound pressure levels of the like of effect of explosions or putting one's head right at the exhaust of a jet engine.

 

[tirreus]

144 dB (or rather 146.76 dB with sine signals, to be precise) dynamic range of 24 bit content or 194.4 db dynamic range of 32 bit content are just mathematical results. That does not means that the music or more broadly speaking the sound recorded at such bit depths actually reaches that kind of dynamic. It does not even mean that actual converters (from analogue to digital or digital to analogue) are able to reach that kind of dynamic range, because the physical world where we all live is not a mathematical abstraction in where we can make real all the thought experiments that we are able to do in mathematics. The boundaries of physics is what limits the actual level of performance, both theoretical and practical, of a data converter.

If you like video educating support, Prof. Jamie Angus and others have tackled that issue at the end (from 48'06'') of a video-seminar I have linked through in that post: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ny-bits-do-we-really-need.54846/#post-1992162

They provide some insights about the maximum dynamic range that it is possible to obtain when ambient room temperature, converter power supply voltages and so on are taken into account. They also speak about the kind of phenomenons that correspond to a sound pressure level that would reach that kind dynamic range. We do no longer speak about music, but rather lethal sound pressure levels of the like of effect of explosions or putting one's head right at the exhaust of a jet engine.

That was very helpful, thank you!

 

[boXem]

144 dB (or rather 146.76 dB with sine signals, to be precise) dynamic range of 24 bit content or 194.4 db dynamic range of 32 bit content ...

I would be curious to see the calculations leading to these values. Especially with the sine signal.

 

[Scytales]

I would be curious to see the calculations leading to these values. Especially with the sine signal.

I just applied the classical formula that Mr Kestler reminded the reader in the document I have referenced above in my previous post: 1.76+6.02N where N is the number of bit . As I understand it, the 1.76 constant is usually skipped as it is good enough the evaluate roughly the dynamic range of a converter without it.

It is also my understanding that this formula is derived from the mathematical analysis of the quantization noise when a sine signal is digitized and that other shapes of signal produce other results. The famous French blogger jipihorn has made an interresting video where he has gone deep inside that matter.

 

[Roland68]

Thank you for your explanation. I agree with major influence of other components in the audio devices chain and that those components might often be the bottleneck of music quality, so improvements in DACs might not make any hearable difference. On the other hand, we do not know. We simply do not know contribution values of all components in our hi-fi systems and therefore we cannot state that the improvement in the DAC chip parameters make no sense. Sure, we might look into tech info provided by the manufacturer of each component but this might be just advertisement, and moreover not all components would have such information available. If we would measure all the components in the chain, found the values and saw that, e.g. the worst is our amplifier with value of 115dB, then I would definitely agree that usage of DAC at 135dB instead of the one at 125dB makes no sense. But we simply do not know, and most of us are not able to measure each of our components and get the results. Therefore, our only option is to constantly improve all components which we might improve to the best we can (financially) reach (carefully listening if the improvement made the difference but in many cases empirical test simply cannot be done (nobody would lend the component for testing)), and hope we did everything possible to have hi-fi system which compromises the music the least.
Now, let us take another consideration. Let us take situation we are rich and we bought all other components in our chain of superb quality, the best on the market. Now, we want to play hi-res music and want to make sure we have the best DAC conversion, or in other words, do the least harm to the signal, won't we really notice difference between 135dB and 125dB DAC conversion? Current hi-res standard, 24bit music, has dynamic range of 144dB (32 bit ->152dB), the value that even the best DACs on the market did not reach yet. It looks we are not able to convert complete information contained in hi-res music even with the best DACs on the market today! Or am I wrong again?

You're wrong on one very simple point. You're assuming theoretical values and not considering the reality.

Point 1: Where are the microphones, microphone amplifiers, studio equipment, etc. that actually enable such quality and dynamic range?

Point 2: Where are the music tracks that transmit this dynamic range? Just because it says 24 or 32 bit somewhere doesn't mean it's possible.

Not too long ago, in a project with manufacturers, developers, measurement technicians, and even a few audiophiles, we looked at the topic of MQA and Hi-Res (FLAC, WAV, DSD, DXD, SACD, DVD-A) music compared to standard CD quality.
What can I say, MQA has absolutely no advantage, Hi-Res VS CD, well. The Hi-Res recordings that actually had an audible advantage can be counted on one or two hands, and it's very possible that the recordings were different. But the opposite case, with CD being better than Hi-Res, occurred more often.
The whole thing was listened to on three systems: the ASR "winner," a system costing around €/$50,000, and one in the six-figure range. The results were consistent for us across all systems.
Each of us has pieces of music that we have been listening to for 20-30 years and none of us noticed a new detail on any of the systems.

Please take a look at the measurement results from the project in the links. This is reality, and it will take decades for anything to change. If you were involved in a high-quality music production and realized how many limitations you have to contend with, you'd hit the ground so hard you'd burst. Often, you're forced to choose between two evils and choose the lesser.
Comparison of more 80 titles and 500 versions from Vinyl to Bluray, mono to Atmos
Magic of Analog, Vinyl, Digital and Spatial Sound

If you continue to pursue theory instead of practice and reality, you'll be among those who waste a lot of time and money.
My advice: get an inexpensive DAC, such as an SU-1/C100, D50 III, or the E70 Velvet with the AK4499EXEQ and AK4191EQ, and do some real blind tests with other DACs yourself, especially high-priced ones.

You can find music titles in high resolution for your own tests at Sound Liaison, for example.
Sound Liaison free download compare formats