Chord Dac64 - differences of opinion?

Well, changing the buffer setting seem to do a little bit more than what IS says:

Fig.12 shows the results obtained under identical test conditions for the second sample of the DAC64. Again, the grayed-out trace is without the RAM buffer. There are still a number of spurious tones visible, but now the main characteristic is a large rise in the random noise floor on either side of the spike representing the 11.025kHz tone. The measured jitter level was a moderately high 587ps. Switching in the RAM buffer set to its maximum size (black trace) reduced the jitter to an excellent 169ps and eliminated the noise-floor peak. Most of the jitter is due to data-related sidebands (red numeric markers).

Finally, I am trying a different Miller Audio Research program that will allow me to measure word-clock jitter at sample rates other than 44.1kHz. Because it runs on a different National Instruments platform than the Jitter Analyzer, the results are not directly comparable with what I've been obtaining with the Analyzer. For interest's sake, however, fig.13 shows a similar spectral analysis taken with the new piece of kit while the DAC64 was decoding 96kHz Jitter Test data. The red trace was taken without any RAM buffer, the black trace with the maximum buffer. Again, the peculiar rise in the noise floor around the central tone can be seen without the buffer; again, the buffer drastically cleans this up, as well as reducing the level of high-frequency jitter components. However, it doesn't eliminate the lower-frequency components.
Click to expand...

as can be read here.
 
Isaac Sibson said:
BerylliumDust - I don't own the IP. If Rob wanted to publish every detail of how it worked, he would.
Click to expand...

Precisely Isaac!

You only know what they want you to know... If buffer's only function was jitter reduction it wouldn't be necessary to have 0, 2 or 4 seconds of buffer... which, in addition, do sound different even when using optical connection from the same transport.

For jitter reduction you would only need some fraction of second of buffer storing just to allow the existance of a re-synchronization clock...

So, why does it sound different... and why not have only the theoretical best sounding buffer position?
 
ChrisPa said:
How come it seems to get 2 contrasting sets of reviews/comments? Thoughts/opinions please.
Click to expand...

Simple... everyone has a pretty different set up, different set of ears & a different taste in music reproduction. ;)

When a product is overhyped in the media, you'll tend to get the extreme views of both spectrum. And the Chord 64 DAC clearly fits into that.

Almost a year now and I still reckon the 64 has given me the best sounding digital replay. Being extremely detailed & controlled are their strength that won me over.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top