You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → ADI-2 & 2/4 Pro series, ADI-2 DAC series → Sound difference of AKM chip vs. ESS chip - article
Because it understandably comes up a lot on this forum, I thought I would post this article I found comparing an AK4493 unit with an ESS unit.
The original article is in Japanese but the English translation is here:
https://www-phileweb-com.translate.goog … r_hl=en-GB
I hope that you find this useful and it goes some way to answering your questions.
Who knows how Genelecs GLM software works and how it has been used.
But even if such details would have been delivered by the author, then it's still not clear whether this is a valid approach.
I personally have doubts that a room correction software has an accuracy that would be required to catch finest sound details and to deliver repeatedly exactly the same results.
To me it looks more like somebody has a tool and makes now pseudo science out of it.
If listeners could identify / differentiate the two DAC chips in properly executed double blind tests at exactly the same listening levels would be a much clearer and significant statement.
I always found ESS chips has something "glib" and "shallow" about them , and AKM chips especially being "genuine", "solid" and "profound". With that in mind ESS is great for house music, and AKM is my first for classical.. Eh. Not really 
Id go with the double blind tests too. And there are rules and mathematical laws to surveys and statistics. So test this out with a large group of unbiased ppl.(Throw in some high end cables too, might get that fad out the window). This way you could get statistical material about the prefered technology. Or not if they sound basically the same. Then again it could be that its just different batch of OP-amps or whatever whats in the signal path. Basically a fruitless discussion as it will change nothing. Like if AKM get their act together, how can we trust they have calibrated their $5 billion chip lithographers to pre-fire standards(!?!).
A fruitfull discussion would have to be how get the best from the equipment that we have. Not whats coolest of AKM or ESS brands. If you think one is better, you will have the best sound from that brand. Or dryer, wetter, sexier, whatever your taste. Thats subjectiveness and psychoacoustics. Thankfully ADI-2 dac/pro could meet almost anybodys expectation.
I certainely didnt buy this box because it had, Wow!! AKM chips..
The nice thing is, everybody here is capable of testing one claim the reviewer makes:
Not quoted literally:
”The different DA Filters within the same unit do sound very different.”
So everybody interested, switch around the DA Filters (with a 44.1 kHz Sample Rate source) and find out if you hear any difference.
I do, but the differences are by far NOT night and day, only subtle.
For me just enough to find one that I prefer over the others.
If you then look at the review in the light of this, you know where the author stands.
I have also done a short comparison and I can hear small differences. For me it looks as if the music is also a little bit louder with the filter Sharp than e.g. SD slow.
I bought the RME dac, do not know it is ESS chip, at first I thought it is delayed production due to AKM chips shortage, but during I am waiting the shipment from Germany, MC announced the ESS chip replacement.
Well, never listen to a AKM chip RME dac, cannot compare it, can not and will not.
As long as the dac works, I am happy, you only need one dac, right?
I do not know how those reviewer(s) can distinguish such small difference of the sound they claim, I do not mean they are lying to gain a higher position with golden ears, I also can lie to tell some difference, but I will not.
About sound difference, I did experience some high end difference between my old Dali Spektor 1 and New Oberon 1 , the Oberon is sharper, sometimes I can hear a blip .... (all other hardware remains the same)
The first two months I am using SD sharp at the Spektor 1, and did test other filters at Oberon 1.... so not sure the blip is caused by the filter, a week ago I put it back to SD sharp, wait and see....
Correct me if I am wrong, my understanding the dac chip is a cpu/calculator, how it works and sound is the firmware and the op-amp, right? same applies to computer cpu....?
The dac translates the samples into an analog waveform that is the audio. Hence DAC: Digital to Analog Conversion. Its a very specialized circuit. A CPU or GPU can do alot more tasks, like compute whatever really.
Im stuck on the sharp filter. Ive tried the others but sharp is the only one that does it for me. I find the differences to be a varying degree of subtle.
I have the impression that sharp is the more popular in devices that dont allow you to change filter settings. Not sure if Im right.
If i understand it right the FPGA comes in before the DAC and does the prosessing like EQ, loudness and stuff and the DAC is logically at the end of the prosess. The digital filters is a part of the conversion prosess in the DAC and(mostly?) inherent to the specific DAC chip. Im treading lightly here 
Maybe it doesnt have to be a completely linear prosess. Im neither an electrical or an audio engineer.
Its intriguing though. Really exciting stuff. Always been a fan of digital since I got my first CD player. That was like 1989/90, a Technics MASH player with a jog wheel. Vinyl can be nice, but I prefer the dynamic sound of digital.
Correct me if I am wrong, my understanding the dac chip is a cpu/calculator, how it works and sound is the firmware and the op-amp, right? same applies to computer cpu....?
A CPU is completely digital, so yes given the same code and inputs it outputs the same, but simply put a DAC chip has an analog output stage/reconstruction filter/... in turn influenced by analog power supply stability and so on, so different DACs will output a (slightly) different signal depending on the exact implementation. Which can be measured.
That being said, to be able to hear a difference is something different. As others saids: only proper blind test results should be taken as proof. I dont think there are any. There are measurements of different DAC implementations including AKM and ESS chips RME uses if I remember correctly but the differences are so small and so far below audibility thresholds that in the end it would be just fascinating if someone could pick out the difference (for a proper implementation).
Johannes AU wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, my understanding the dac chip is a cpu/calculator, how it works and sound is the firmware and the op-amp, right? same applies to computer cpu....?
A CPU is completely digital, so yes given the same code and inputs it outputs the same, but simply put a DAC chip has an analog output stage/reconstruction filter/... in turn influenced by analog power supply stability and so on, so different DACs will output a (slightly) different signal depending on the exact implementation. Which can be measured.
That being said, to be able to hear a difference is something different. As others saids: only proper blind test results should be taken as proof. I dont think there are any. There are measurements of different DAC implementations including AKM and ESS chips RME uses if I remember correctly but the differences are so small and so far below audibility thresholds that in the end it would be just fascinating if someone could pick out the difference (for a proper implementation).
eleweit, thank you so much for the information
Im stuck on the sharp filter. Ive tried the others but sharp is the only one that does it for me. I find the differences to be a varying degree of subtle.
I have the impression that sharp is the more popular in devices that dont allow you to change filter settings. Not sure if Im right.If i understand it right the FPGA comes in before the DAC and does the prosessing like EQ, loudness and stuff and the DAC is logically at the end of the prosess. The digital filters is a part of the conversion prosess in the DAC and(mostly?) inherent to the specific DAC chip. Im treading lightly here
Its intriguing though. Really exciting stuff. Always been a fan of digital since I got my first CD player. That was like 1989/90, a Technics MASH player with a jog wheel. Vinyl can be nice, but I prefer the dynamic sound of digital.
Agree, same as digital photography, some enjoy the details of digital, some enjoy the grain of film.
JohannesAU: Spot on!
[...]
I do not know how those reviewer(s) can distinguish such small difference of the sound they claim, I do not mean they are lying to gain a higher position with golden ears, ...
[...]
This is the problem of psychoacoustics when performing tests knowing which device is playing.
Properly performed (double) blind tests cause such a high effort, which not everyone can meet.
In an article from audiosciencereview forum I found the information that the switching time for A/B tests should be under 200ms.
Then with psychoacoustics you can also sell much better and there HiFi-industry, -magazines, -dealers and -buyers influence and boost each other up to making false claims.
The problem here is that they strongly believe in what they hear and ignore to choose proper methodology to exclude psychoacoustic.
Interesting I find two threads in audioscience review forum which - basically summarized - represent the position that DA converters (the ICs) now play on a very high level and differences between devices are only perceptible by the human ear in blind tests, if the DAC chip or the device design have weaknesses and thus certain threshold values, which significantly affect the listening quality, would be undercut.
In another thread, an attempt was made to list these quality-determining characteristics and to define threshold values, from which perceptible changes in the sound are to be expected.
In this respect it does not surprise me that the ADI-2 DAC/Pro in the converter comparison on YouTube compared very well to much more expensive AD converters up to €8000 (for AD only! and significantly less features).
So whatever DAC chip RME will decide to use in their designs I have the trust and confidence that the final product will have the same outstanding quality and there is no other product on the market offering all those useful RME technology and features where you can even ensure and measure lossless audio transfer end to end.
Ramses: Can U link to that specific youtube comparison test and the audioscience articles.
Johannes AU wrote:[...]
I do not know how those reviewer(s) can distinguish such small difference of the sound they claim, I do not mean they are lying to gain a higher position with golden ears, ...
[...]This is the problem of psychoacoustics when performing tests knowing which device is playing.
Properly performed (double) blind tests cause such a high effort, which not everyone can meet.
In an article from audiosciencereview forum I found the information that the switching time for A/B tests should be under 200ms.
Then with psychoacoustics you can also sell much better and there HiFi-industry, -magazines, -dealers and -buyers influence and boost each other up to making false claims.
The problem here is that they strongly believe in what they hear and ignore to choose proper methodology to exclude psychoacoustic.
Interesting I find two threads in audioscience review forum which - basically summarized - represent the position that DA converters (the ICs) now play on a very high level and differences between devices are only perceptible by the human ear in blind tests, if the DAC chip or the device design have weaknesses and thus certain threshold values, which significantly affect the listening quality, would be undercut.
In another thread, an attempt was made to list these quality-determining characteristics and to define threshold values, from which perceptible changes in the sound are to be expected.
In this respect it does not surprise me that the ADI-2 DAC/Pro in the converter comparison on YouTube compared very well to much more expensive AD converters up to €8000 (for AD only! and significantly less features).
So whatever DAC chip RME will decide to use in their designs I have the trust and confidence that the final product will have the same outstanding quality and there is no other product on the market offering all those useful RME technology and features where you can even ensure and measure lossless audio transfer end to end.
Agree.
We also have mood, mood changes how our brain works, the same equipment produce sound we love and enjoy today can be annoying on the other day with bad mood.
We bought RME base on their technical know-how
JohannesAU: Spot on!
Been to Norway twice, enjoy the tranquillity there, Hong Kong is TOO noisy.
Iceland is nice too, though can hear some rumbles from the moving earth, but that was natural.
At the moment I am enjoying some Christmas music play via the RME dac, wonderful.
I have done a sound comparison between my ADI-2 Pro AE, the Grace Design M902B and all my DAP players. I got the best results when I also connected the DAP players directly to the MEG Subwoofer and after that to the monitors.
The DAP players have different DACs:
Astell & Kern AK120II => Cirus CS4398
Astell & Kern AK320 => AK4490
Fiio M11 Pro => AK4497EQ
To my opinion the sound of the Fiio M11 Pro connected directly and connected indirectly to the ADI-2 pro and then to the subwoofer was almost identical which I think is a really perfect result.
The Grace M902B acted more like a filter which means that some of finest sound colors disappeared.
The converter shootout you can find in my blog article:
http://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/inde … ses-EN-DE/
Sorry, the two audiosciencereview threads I couldn't find again. Have only a smartphone with me.
Ramses: Can U link to that specific youtube comparison test and the audioscience articles.
Could be this one?
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/foru … o.26809%2F
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/foru … deo.21026/
I found this one about parameters and thresholds again. I browsed through it, interesting approach.
But I think the final judgement should be done by our ears in a blind test listening to the resulting sound which is the sum of the circuits and it's design.
Like also the measured values like SNR are the sum of the DAC chips capabilities and the surrounding circuits.
I think a wrong approach would be to follow such artificial numbers blindly, which are from I think experience and perception of a few people in their environment.
Maybe tonmeister and studio engineers have here a more solid background to judge whether those values are reasonable. Another thing is wheather it makes a difference when you are close to one or multiple of those thresholds.
But maybe this approach is not too bad as it might show, how good the technical measurable data of nowadays products are already and how far those values are from those thresholds that might be audible.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/foru … ost-127757
THnx!
Happy_amateur wrote:Ramses: Can U link to that specific youtube comparison test and the audioscience articles.
Could be this one?
https://youtu.be/vRG8TaxGcbUhttps://www.audiosciencereview.com/foru … o.26809%2F
No not that one.
I found the other thread again with some interesting comments like this from solderdude:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/foru … ost-240112
I just published this:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/foru … amp.35377/
I just published this:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/foru … amp.35377/
First class scientific report. Thanks.
I just published this:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/foru … amp.35377/
Can you check if the ESS version has elevated noise floor when testing against DSD256 signals?
Archimago has test files published here:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2022/06/n … ments.html
search for "Arch's Standard +3.1dBDSD 1kHz DSD Signals"
RME User Forum → ADI-2 & 2/4 Pro series, ADI-2 DAC series → Sound difference of AKM chip vs. ESS chip - article
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.