The well segmented dac – DSD discrete dac

The new DSD discrete DAC is now available.

There are two version of the DAC:

– with standard thin film resistors

– with tantalum nitride resistors

Both R2R and DSD DAC sound very good, maybe the DSD DAC is more precise and detailed while the R2R DAC has better midrange.
Difficult choice, maybe I prefer the R2R DAC for simple acoustic music and the DSD DAC for complex music like orchestra.

Anyway both DAC sound a little better with tantalum resistors, although they already sound very good with standard thin film resistors.
With tantalum resistors the R2R DAC is more detailed, while the DSD DAC has more midrange fullness.

For those who are interested on the DSD discrete DAC, we have reached the best sonic performance when the DAC is driven by the FIFO Lite with 22/24 MHz DRIXO oscillators and RTZ enabled in DSD256 input format.

https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/the-black-hole.349926/post-7306229

It’s truly amazing that some still hate everything we design, despite Andrea Mori and The Well Audio having been banned for a long time.
It is also very incorrect, since we don’t have the possibility to reply.

We, on the other hand, are correct people, so we invite all detractors, even those who hate us, to post on this forum.
Maybe we can have a civilized discussion.

Thanks for your kind words.

I know them, they are not engineers, they only are obtuse people who talk only about measurements and then they are not even able to read the measurements they are pointing out.

Someone referred to Auralic products and mocked Mark (and his friend) for his statements.
Well, they are not even able to compare a few basic measurements in order to understand that Auralic devices are nothing special although very expensive.
Let’s pick the LEO GX.1 Reference Master Clock, the Femto seconds master clock as they claim.
From their website:
Equivalent Phase Noise: -110dBc/Hz@1Hz (Ref Frequency: 10MHz)

Well, our 10 MHz DRIXO oscillator measures -120dBc/Hz@1Hz, 10 dB better than the Auralic.
Of course, we have published the phase noise plot, they don’t.

To put it like Mark, DRIXO “destroys” Auralic.

Just the last curious thing: our DRIXO costs 251 Euro (crystal + finished board), while the Auralic Leo costs 9899 Euro!

But perhaps such engineers need to go back to school to figure out how to compare the measurements they are very fond of.
And if they don’t like what I wrote they can always come here and reply, they are welcome.
But they won’t.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by Moderator.

Marcel, you are welcome.

Right observation since I wrote that I would use sigma delta DACs for cooking a pizza.
When I was in Auburn last year Mark and Jam pressed me hard to build a DSD DAC.
Even though we weren’t very convinced, especially Roberto, we finally decided to give it a try.

In the end I have to change my mind, after the last adjustments the DSD DAC sounds very good.
Roberto still prefers the PCM DAC, I prefer both, so much so that in the Sonic Empire version we are working on we will implement both with some improvements.
IMHO the DSD DAC it’s more detailed and the soundstage is better, while the PCM DAC has better midrange.
Depending on the music I listen to I prefer one or the other.

We had a listening session just last tuensday, the differences between the two DACs are getting smaller and smaller.

Both DAC were driven by the FIFO Lite with DRIXO oscillators.
For the DAC Lite we have used a Zanden filter follewed by a diamond buffer.
The DSD DAC was configured as folow:
– Laptop
– JLSounds I2SoverUSB
– Simple DSD converter to DSD256 (FPGA project posted on diyaudio)
– FIFO Lite working in RTZ mode
– 5/6 MHz oscillators followed by a pair of doublers for each sample rate family to reach 22/24 MHz
– differential to single ended buffer

We also have tried single ended output from the DAC, decoupled with 33uF Mundorf EVO oil. Maybe it sounds still better, but the output voltage was too low (divided by 4, RTZ and single ended).

There was a clearly audible difference when we have used the 22/24 MHz DRIXO directly. With 5/6 MHz DRIXO and doublers the DSD DAC sounds better. Which means that subharmonics don’t matter much.
Obviously the FFT wouldn’t detect any difference, but that’s another topic.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by The Well Audio.

DSD and PCM DAC have different sonic signature.
Both DSD DAC are more detailed and precise than the PCM DAC and maybe the soundstage is wider and deeper.
PCM DAC has better midrange and in our opinion is more dynamic than the DSD DAC.
In the end I believe it’s a question of personal taste.
We like both DSD and PCM DAC, that’s the reason we will implement both in the Sonic Empire version of the DAC.

The TWSDAC-DSD-SE DAC is the entry level of the Lite series DAC. We designed it to offer an affordable DAC which sounds anyway very good.
Of course, the balanced version of the DSD DAC driven by the FIFO and 5/6 MHz DRIXO oscillators followed by 4 doublers to reach 22/24 MHz sounds better, but it does cost almost 3 times.
Does it worth?Difficult to say, I would start with the cheaper DSD SE DAC in order to understand if I like the DSD sonic signature.

TWSAFB-XMOS USB receiver and TWSAFB-LT FIFO buffer share almost the same architecture in their clean side of the circuit.
The FIFO buffer is more versatile. It has 4 x I2S selectable inputs, while the XMOS receiver has only one USB input. The FIFO buffer ca drive almost all the DAC (old and modern), while the XMOS board can drive only standard DSD and I2S DAC. For example the XMOS receiver cannot drive the PCM DAC Lite and the balanced DSD DAC.
Although the TWSAFB-XMOS can drive standard DSD and I2S DAC, it was designed specifically to drive the TWSDAC-DSD-SE in order to offer a good DAC at an affordable price.

The Zanden filter is not part of the Lite product line, it will be implemented in the Sonic Empire version of the DAC only.

Sorry, not tried. Now we are working on the Sonic Empire version of the DAC.